Appeal No. 96-1903
Application 08/263,368
answer, pages 2 to 5], and Appellant’s argument [second reply
brief, pages 2 to 3], we are in agreement with the Appellant
that Hubbard’s two printing means 28, 30 and 102, and 40 can
not be obviously combined with APA’s two print heads ink jet
printer as asserted with the Examiner. The Examiner contends
that “The mere substitution of one known type of printhead for
an equivalent another by those having ordinary skill in the
art in order to achieve the same printing function would have
involved no apparent unobviousness.” [Supplemental answer,
page 3]. We disagree. The printing mechanisms 28, 30 and
102, of Hubbard is of different type than an ink jet printer
and works on a different principal. To replace it and the
other printer 40 in Hubbard with a single printer with two
printheads would not have been obvious without using
Appellant's disclosure as a blue print. That is
impermissible. Neither Calvi nor Auslander cures this
deficiency. Thus, the obviousness rejection of claim 1 over
Hubbard, APA, Auslander and Calvi is not sustainable. Since
the dependent claims 16 and 19 each contain at least the
limitation of the parent claim 1, the obviousness rejection of
claims 16 and 19 is also not sustainable.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007