Appeal No. 1997-1425
Application No. 08/520,228
"Additionally, when determining obviousness, the claimed
invention should be considered as a whole; there is no legally
recognizable 'heart' of the invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v.
SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237,
1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984)).
The Examiner’s rejection reasons that Oshida teaches the
adjustment of any aspect of a recording machine based on the
kind of material used such as the thickness and roughness of
paper. However, since Oshida lacks the detectors for these
parameters and is a different type of recording machine (i.e.,
heat transfer recording), the Examiner cites Wong for using a
thickness detecting device in a photocopier recording machine.
The Examiner then cites Courtney for controlling a photocopier
wherein a light source is used to detect specular and diffused
reflections. The Examiner concludes that specular and
diffused reflections as used in Jakeman can detect surface
roughness (Final Rejection-page 4). “Therefore, because
these detection devices and controllers were art-recognized
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007