Appeal No. 1999-1488
Application 08/630,332
disclosed, when the medium is located at the boundary of the
hopper and the apparatus body, the controller drives the motor
to drive the locking portion (page 17, lines 5 to 18).
Therefore, reading this claim in light of the disclosure, the 3
meaning of the term "can be engaged" is indefinite, since it
appears from the disclosure that the locking portion will be
engaged.
(B) Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Okamoto in view of Suzuki. In Fig. 6 4
et. seq., Okamoto discloses a copier having a tray 10, which
constitutes a hopper of the drawer type, the paper sheets
3 See In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 993, 169 USPQ 95, 98 (CCPA
1971).
4Normally, a rejection under § 103 should not be based on
assumptions as to the scope of claims, but rather the claims
should be rejected under § 112, second paragraph. In re
Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962).
Here, in the interest of administrative efficiency, we have
interpreted "said sensor" as --said sensor means-- in making
the present rejection of claim 1. Cf. Ex parte Saceman, 27
USPQ2d 1472 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993). However, in view of
the indefiniteness noted in rejections (A)(ii) and (iii),
supra, we have refrained from rejecting any of claims 2 to 6
under § 103, but would add that if rejections (A)(ii) and
(iii) are overcome, claims 2 to 6 might still be considered
unpatentable over Okamoto in view of Suzuki and/or other prior
art.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007