Appeal No. 1997-1004
Application No. 08/095,479
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given 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.
Assuming arguendo that the combination of references is proper, the combination
of Suzuki, Koike ‘980, Koike ‘036 and Maekawa do not teach or suggest the invention as
set forth in the language of claim 1 with respect to “immediately thereafter, within 60
2
seconds after printing, applying from 1 to 300 Kg/cm pressure on the plain paper,
whereby the ink is penetrated forcibly into the plain paper.” Appellants argue that Suzuki
does not apply a pressure in the claimed range within the claimed time period. (See brief
at pages 9-13.) We agree with appellants.
Appellants have provided evidence in a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 with
respect to operation of the various rollers under various pressures and the resultant
performance with respect to blurring of the recorded image. (See Hashimoto declaration,
paper no.29, filed Sep. 29, 1995; and brief at pages 13-16.)
Appellants argue that
[t]he Examiner has not made any showing that the ink of Suzuki would have
been inherently forcibly penetrated into the [plain] paper because
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007