Appeal No. 2001-1209
Application No. 09/106,281
control taught by Pfeuffer “... in order to maintain a constant
sheet conveying speed regardless of temperature fluctuations in
the platen roller so as to ensure the quality of sheet printing
and conveying operation.”
After reviewing the Examiner’s analysis, it is our view that
such analysis carefully points out the teachings of the Fukumoto
and Pfeuffer references, reasonably indicates the perceived
differences between this prior art and the claimed invention, and
provides reasons as to how and why the prior art teachings would
have been modified and/or combined to arrive at the claimed
invention. In our opinion, the Examiner's analysis is
sufficiently reasonable that we find that the Examiner has at
least satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. The burden is, therefore, upon Appellants to come
forward with evidence and/or arguments which persuasively rebut
the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the Brief have not been considered [see 37
CFR § 1.192(a)].
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007