Appeal No. 1996-3578 Page 4
Application No. 08/125,756
speed with pre-scanning and a regular scanning speed. (See Isogai at col. 3, lines 66-68.)
In the portion of Isogai set forth by the examiner, we find no discussion of the relationship
as set forth in claim 17. Furthermore, we find no discussion of the scan scope or the
automatic control thereof as set forth in the language of claim 18 in the portion of Isogai
cited by the examiner.
With respect to the claim limitation of automatically changing the speed of the scan
in claim 17, the examiner discusses “trimming an image.” (See Final rejection at page 2.)
The examiner has not identified how this trimming relates to automatic change in the
speed of the scan. In the answer, the examiner states the “image sensor 15 can be
moved at a variable speed such as high or low speeds in relationship with the
magnification of the zoom lens 11, . . . col. 4, line 22+ and col. 5).” (See answer at page
4.) (Emphasis added.) Appellants argue that this portion of Isogai does not teach a
relationship between the speed and magnification. (See brief at page 5.) Appellants
address that portion of the text of the reference. Id. at 5-6. We agree with appellants that
Isogai does not teach the claimed relationship between the speed and magnification.
Assuming arguendo that the system of Isogai could be controlled as
the Examiner states, we are still left with the fact that the reference does not explicitly or
inherently teach this limitation of the claimed invention. Therefore, the Examiner has not
set forth a prima facie case of anticipation.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007