Appeal No. 96-1903
Application 08/263,368
Rejection of Claims 6 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected as being obvious over
Hubbard in view of APA and Calvi. We take the independent
claim 6 as an example. After considering the Examiner’s
position [supplemental answer, pages 5 and 6] and Appellant’s
argument [second reply brief, page 4], we are of the view that
the Examiner’s suggested combination of Hubbard, APA and Calvi
does not meet the limitations of claim 6, for example,
limitations: “a first ink ... indicia” (item b); “a first ...”
(item c); and “second ... ” (item d). As we discussed Hubbard
before in regard to claim 1, Hubbard does not have the
structure of the two printing mechanisms of a nature from
which the claimed structure can be realized without the
impermissible use of the blue print of the claimed invention.
Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claim 6 over Hubbard,
APA and Calvi is not sustainable. Since claim 17 depends on
claim 6 and thereby contains at least the same limitations as
discussed above, the obviousness rejection of claim 17 over
Hubbard, APA and Calvi is also not sustainable.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007