Appeal No. 1997-2839
Application No. 08/448,778
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 16, 24 and 25 as
unpatentable over Marazzi '684 or Marazzi '467 in view of
Hanson.
The examiner explains that "Marazzi et al. '684 and
Marazzi et al. '467 substantially describe the invention
except for employing an ion deposition printer and web speeds
of 100 ft./min. or greater" (answer, page 7). Hanson is cited
for his teaching of ion deposition printers as equivalent to
laser printers (answer, page 7). It is the examiner's
position that it would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
art to employ either a laser or ion printer as suggested by
Hanson (answer, page 7) and/or to adjust the feed rate of the
transfer unit "to 100 ft./min. or greater, since ion
deposition printers operate at such linear speeds and Marazzi
et al. '684 expressly teach matching the speed of the transfer
unit with that of the printer output" (answer, page 8). The
examiner adds that "Marazzi et al. '684 teach feeding sheets;
however, it is well known and would have been obvious to one
skilled in this art to have alternatively fed a laminate foil
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007