Appeal No. 96-3945
Application 08/095,016
claims 1 and 21 on appeal. Essentially, the claimed auxiliary
print making device is shown in Figure 2 of Ambro. It should
be noted that the receiving sheet 24 in this figure appears to
be discussed in the paragraph bridging columns 4 and 5 of
Ambro where it is taught to be a reflective substrate of
either paper or plastic. The abstract of Ambro embellishes in
a simpler manner the critical features recited in these two
claims on appeal.
In light of these findings, we do not agree with
appellants' assertion that Ambro does not disclose the
combination of an imaging device and an auxiliary print making
processor. Ambro's color proofing method clearly would have
taught to the artisan the claimed simulation of a photographic
print to the extent recited in independent claims 1 and 21 on
appeal. Thus, it appears as well that the examiner has
provided evidence of equivalent structure to that which has
been set forth in these claims on appeal. Finally, we note
that appellants' arguments as to claim 21 are misplaced since
Ambro alone is utilized to reject this claim and Kinoshita's
teachings have not been relied upon by the examiner.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007