Appeal No. 1997-0693
Application 08/226,684
that at least all of the light source-photo detector pairs of
the arrangement of prior art Figure 2 of Shinma would
illuminate a dye frame and pass light therethrough. On the
other hand, however, there is no indication in Figures 2 and 3
or in the written description associated with Figures 2 and 3
that any of the light source/detector pairs are located in the
margin of the dye donor element as required by claim 1 on
appeal. Therefore, for these additional reasons we must
reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of claim 1 on
appeal and the rejection of its dependent claims under 35
U.S.C. § 102 and
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Shinma.
We reach a different result as to the rejection of
independent claim 8, and, because no features of dependent
claims 9 and 10 have been argued by appellant in the brief and
reply brief, the rejection of these claims as well. These
claims stand rejected as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §
102 over Sparer.2
Though not before us, we note in passing that the earlier noted2
teachings and showings of Shinma relate directly to the subject matter of
independent claim 8 on appeal in a manner consistent with and in some aspects
even more illustrative than the subject matter of Sparer.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007