Appeal No. 2001-1209
Application No. 09/106,281
added to the combination of Fukumoto and Pfeuffer to address the
stencil sheet limitation of this claim, we sustain this rejection
as well. In our view, Appellants’ arguments (Brief, page 9)
focus unpersuasively on the failure of Masaru to teach the
claimed thermal head and platen roller temperature dependent
speed control features, features which are disclosed by Fukumoto
and Pfeuffer. We find no convincing arguments from Appellants
that would convince us of any error in the Examiner’s assertion
of the obviousness to the skilled artisan of applying the platen
roller temperature sensor and speed control teachings of Fukumoto
and Pfeuffer to a stencil making apparatus such as that disclosed
in Masaru.
Turning to a consideration of dependent claim 5, grouped and
argued separately by Appellants, we note that, while we found
Appellants’ arguments to be unpersuasive with respect to the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2-4 and 6-9 discussed
supra, we reach the opposite conclusion with respect to the
obviousness rejection of claim 5. As indicated by Appellants
(Brief, pages 3-8), claim 5 is directed to the feature in which
the platen roller expansion coefficient factor ", a component of
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007