Ex Parte Bates et al - Page 5

           Appeal Number: 2007-0385                                                                  
           Application Number: 10/375,067                                                            

           complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note           
           In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If             
           that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the applicant to overcome the prima         
           facie case with argument and/or evidence.  Obviousness is then determined on the          
           basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments.        
           See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986);           
           In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In           
           re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).                          
                 The examiner's position (Answer 3) is that Sugiyama does not disclose a             
           sheet detecting unit that uses a reference timer to set values for making a jamming       
           judgment.  To overcome this deficiency of Sugiyama, the examiner turns to                 
           Sakamaki (id.) for a teaching of an image forming apparatus in which a sheet              
           detecting unit uses sheet feeding reference timer values to make jamming                  
           judgments for the purpose of stopping the image forming apparatus when a jam              
           occurs (see abstract).  The Examiner adds (id.), that [i]t would have been obvious        
           for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's invention to     
           modify Sugiyama by utilizing a sheet detecting unit that uses sheet feeding               
           reference timer values to make jamming judgments for the purpose of stopping the          
           image forming apparatus when a jam occurs.                                                
                 Appellant asserts (Br. 8) that Sugiyama does not disclose an image forming          
           apparatus having a sheet detecting unit and a control unit which performs control         
           so as to make a set value for a reference timer for a jamming judgment different          
           from a set value for an ordinary sheet, as recited in claim 1.  It is argued that the     
           paper feeding intervals of Sugiyama are not for jam detection.  It is further asserted    
           (Br. 9) that in Sakamaki the jamming judgment is based on comparison of a                 
           reference time interval with an actual time interval, and (id.) that Sakamaki does        

                                                 5                                                   


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007