Appeal No. 96-3945
Application 08/095,016
OPINION
We sustain both rejections essentially for the reasons
set forth by the examiner in the answer with the following
amplification.
As to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ambro alone, this reference at
column 1, lines 32 through 42 appears to be the basis for and
is compatible with the teaching in the paragraph bridging
columns 2 and 3 of this reference utilizing prior art
electrophotographic color imaging devices suggestive of the
claimed xerographic imaging device of claim 1 on appeal. This
is so because it produces a transparent thermoplastic overcoat
sheet 21 having thereon “color toner images” (Figure 2). They
appear to be on the bottom portion of the transparent sheet 21
in the same manner as disclosed by appellants on transparent
sheet 25 in Figure 3 of the disclosed invention. Thus, they
would have been considered mirror images to the extent
claimed. The discussion at column 3 of Ambro from lines 4
through 25 explains the details of the remaining portions of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007