Appeal No. 96-2278
Application 08/175,001
relatively close to each other. This is a matter of simple
common sense. There is no evidence on this record, however,
regarding the obviousness of the card holding station of
claims 1 and 13 in which the image of the object is visible
when the card is received. As we noted above, such a
condition is not necessary to the operation of Axelrod, and
the examiner has not addressed the obviousness of this
limitation.
Independent claims 7 and 12 also contain the
recitation of “a card holding station for receiving said card
so that said image is visible to an operator of said
apparatus.” For reasons we have already discussed at length,
Axelrod does not disclose any card holding mechanism so that
Axelrod does not anticipate these claims within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 102. Therefore, we do not sustain the examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of any of the appealed claims
based on Axelrod.
We now consider the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8 and
10-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
teachings of Senanayake and Piosenka. In rejecting claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007