Appeal No. 96-1455
Application No. 08/218,279
respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we will sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Since we believe that one skilled in the art at the time
of appellants' invention would have been motivated to make the
proposed combination for the reasons given above with respect
to claim 1, we have determined that claims 2 through 18 and 25
must be treated as falling with claim 1. See In re Nielson,
816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Thus, it follows that the Examiner's rejection of claims 2
through 18 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is also sustained.
Appellants have provided argument as to why claims 19-24
are separately patentable; therefore, claims 19-24 will be
reviewed separately. Claim 19 is representative of claims 19-
24.
With regard to claim 19, as discussed above Yoshiwaka
discloses a system to reproduce one or more print images onto
a recording medium and include designated aspect ratio
information therewith. Appellants argue, at page 6, lines 10-
-19-
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007