Appeal No. 1998-3391
Application 08/659,143
Therefore, we find that Matsuo does not teach a paper
path
C between two printers. Furthermore, we find that Matsuo
teaches a paper path which is an arc which is then followed by
a V which is a paper path between this discharge of a printer
onto a paper discharging tray 41. Again, we fail to find that
Matsuo teaches or suggests the Appellant's claimed invention.
When reviewing the three references, Sugisaki, Hasegawa
and Matsuo, we fail to find any reason as to why one of
ordinary skill in the art would modify Sugisaki to provide a
guide means for guiding separate sheets of paper in a single
U- or C-shaped arc from the output port of a first laser
printer to a paper feed port of a second laser printer as
claimed by Appellant in claims 1 and 24. Furthermore, we note
that the additional reference Boeck fails to provide the
missing piece as well. Therefore, we will not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 6 through 10, 14, 24, 25 and
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 11, 13, 15, 16 and 20 through 23 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sugisaki in
view of well known art. The Examiner agrees that Sugisaki
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007