Appeal 2007-1908
Application 10/442,950
1 origin position to the set or next position, the combined teachings and
2 suggestions of the Coburn patents, the Miller patent and the Hirakawa would
3 not have suggested moving the heads individually from their previous
4 position to the origin or parked position. From our review of Linn and Seki,
5 these references fail to make up for the deficiencies of the other references
6 because neither of these references teach or suggest moving the heads
7 individually to the origin or parked position. From all of the above, we hold
8 that the combined teachings of the applied prior art would not have
9 suggested the language of claim 3. It follows that we cannot sustain the
10 rejection of claim 3, or claims 4-6 which depend therefrom.
11
12 CONCLUSION OF LAW
13 On the record before us, Appellant has shown that the applied prior art
14 would not have suggested to an artisan the language of claims 3-6.
21
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013