Appeal No. 96-2376
Application No. 08/195,341
showing of the notoriety of document transport mechanisms in
facsimile devices. Accordingly, while appellant argues that
the Ogata patent is “void” because the examiner states that it
lacks a document transport mechanism and therefore, according
to appellant, describes an “inoperative mechanism” [brief -
pages 4-5], on the contrary, the examiner is alleging that a
document transport mechanism, although not described in Ogata,
was so well known to artisans that Ogata did not need to
describe such and that such a mechanism would have been
“inherent” in Ogata. Therefore, to whatever extent
appellant’s argument in this regard is even relevant to the
rejection, there is clearly no evidence on this record which
is indicative of any inoperability of the Ogata device.
Also misplaced is appellant’s argument that somehow the
references are not combinable because the patent to Ijuin was
issued ten months after the filing date of the Ogata patent.
Appellant appears to be stating a new test for obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. 103; that is, that patent references may not
be combined unless the patentee, or inventor, on one of two
references actually knew about the work of the patentee, or
inventor, of the other reference. The ludicrousness of this
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007