Appeal No. 1997-1004
Application No. 08/095,479
Furthermore, the additional references applied by the examiner against
independent claim 1 do not remedy the deficiencies in Suzuki. The Maekawa reference
does not teach or fairly suggest the application of the claimed pressure to plain paper, but
only to synthetic pulp paper. (See Maekawa at col. 6.) Similarly, the Koike ‘980 and ‘036
references do not teach or suggest the application of the claimed pressure to forcibly
penetrate ink into plain paper. The examiner maintains that the rubbing as disclosed by
Koike would have been a disclosure of the application of pressure within a set time period.
(See supplemental examiner’s answer at page 1; and second supplemental examiner’s
answer at page 1.) We agree with this statement by the examiner, but disagree that the
disclosure of Koike ‘980 or Koike ‘036 would have taught or suggested the application of
a pressure within the claimed range of pressures and within the time period to forcibly
penetrate the ink into plain paper. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or
its dependent claims 3, 5, 8, 14-18 and 21.
Similarly, the additional references to applied Roteman, Brenneman, and Iwata do
not remedy the deficiencies in the above combination. Therefore, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 6, 10-13, 19 and 20.
CONCLUSION
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007