Appeal No. 1996-3709
Application 07/980,221
in view of the teachings or suggestions of the inventor.”
Para-Ordnance Mfg. V. SGS Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1087, 37
USPQ 2d at 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), citing W. Lish. Gore &
Assocs., v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d at 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ at
311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
We now consider the various rejections.
Claims 1 to 10 and 12 to 20
The Examiner has rejected these claims over Tabuchi in
view of Ohsawa, Tsukakoshi and Kando. Taking independent
claim 1, we have reviewed the rejection spanning pages 4
through 17 of the answer. The Examiner has employed Ohsawa,
Tsukakoshi and Kando to modify Tabuchi to meet the limitations
of claim 1. At places the Examiner has arbitrarily supplied a
link to combine by asserting [answer, page 7] that “the
direction in which the drum is removed from the upper body is
considered to be an obvious matter of design choice to one
having ordinary skill in the art.” Again, the Examiner
contends [answer, pages 9 to 10] that “it is submitted that it
is obvious to one having skill in the art that the cooperating
paper supplying roller, conveying rollers and friction pad for
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007