Appeal No. 1996-3578 Page 3
Application No. 08/125,756
Claims 17-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being unpatentable over
Isogai. Claims 17-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
DiPietro.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No.17 , mailed Sep. 19, 1995) and supplemental answer (Paper No.19 ,
mailed Dec. 12, 1995) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 16, filed Jun. 22, 1995) and reply brief (Paper No.
17 1/2, filed Nov. 20, 1995) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
§ 102 Rejection
Appellants argue that Isogai is “silent as to correlating scanning speed and magnification.”
(See brief at page 4.) (Emphasis in original.) We agree with
appellants. Isogai does not teach the automatic decreasing of the moving speed as the
magnification of the taking lens is increased. Isogai merely teaches the use of a high
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007