Appeal No. 1997-3074 Page 7
Application No. 08/392,598
through an aperture in a scanner housing. Such an “argument”
is not persuasive since the examiner recognized that such was
not disclosed by the reference. However, the examiner provided
a somewhat reasonable explanation as to why it would have been
obvious to provide for an access panel to such firmware and
appellants have failed to rebut the obviousness argument in any
way. An argument based on a reference not disclosing a feature
is not sufficient when the rejection is based on why it would
have been obvious to provide for such a feature.
As to claim 4, this claim calls for a scanner frame and a
switch which zeroes the scale when the scanner is inserted into
the frame. Appellants “argue,” again, only that the reference
does not teach a zeroing switch which is activated upon
insertion of a scanner within the mounting frame but appellants
do not argue why it would not have been obvious to have
provided for such activation in view of Latimer’s teaching of a
zeroing switch and the examiner’s reasoning that the broad
recitation of claim 4 would be met by Latimer’s manually
operated switch which would be depressed “when the scanner is
inserted into the frame” in order to zero the scale after
insertion of a scanner. Thus, appellants have made no
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007