Appeal No. 2001-1209
Application No. 09/106,281
the platen roller speed computing equation, is reduced for
temperature ranges above a predetermined value. We don’t
necessarily disagree with the Examiner’s assertion (Answer, page
5) that, given Pfeuffer’s disclosed recognition of the
relationship between platen roller speed and roller temperature
variations, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to derive a
mathematical equation to compute the corrected roller speed
values. We find no teaching or suggestion, however, in Pfeuffer,
or in any of the other prior art of record, that would support
the Examiner’s conclusion of the obviousness to the skilled
artisan of adjusting the expansion coefficient of the platen
roller at temperature ranges above and below a predetermined
temperature as claimed. The Examiner must not only make
requisite findings, based on the evidence of record, but must
also explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed to
support the asserted conclusion. See In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338,
1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Accordingly,
since all of the claimed limitations are not taught or suggested
by the applied prior art references, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 5 is not sustained.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007