Ex Parte WATANABE et al - Page 3




          Appeal No. 2001-1209                                                        
          Application No. 09/106,281                                                  


                    a motor connected to the platen roller for                        
               rotating the same at a speed set by the processing                     
               means so that the sheet is transferred by the platen                   
               roller at a predetermined speed regardless of a                        
               temperature of the platen roller.                                      
               The Examiner relies on the following prior art:                        
          Fukumoto et al. (Fukumoto)    5,160,944           Nov. 03, 1992             
          Pfeuffer                      5,170,215           Dec. 08, 1992             
          Masaru                   JP 08-090747             Apr. 09, 1996             
               (Published Japanese Patent Application)                                
               Claims 2-9 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).            
          As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner offers Fukumoto in view            
          of Pfeuffer with respect to claims 2-8, and adds Masaru to the              
          basic combination with respect to claim 9.                                  
               Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the                                                                     
          Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 13) and the             
          Supplemental Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 16) for the respective            
          details.1                                                                   
                                       OPINION                                        
               We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,             
          the rejections advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of                 
          obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the                  



               1 The Examiner submitted the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer in response
          to a remand from the Board.  In this decision, we will refer to the         
          Supplemental Examiner’s Answer as simply the Answer.                        
                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007