Appeal No. 1998-0488
Application No. 08/496,234
Brovman and Kishner teach distinguishing a black ink reference
indicator from process black for the purpose of
misregistration, the two references only teach distinguishing
marks made by each of the printing stations separately and not
as a process black mark. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 5-8.
Independent claim 9 recites the examination of a
process black registration mark and making color evaluations
of this process black registration mark. Although the
examiner is of the view that the applied prior art performs
these steps, we do not agree. As noted above, the applied
prior art teaches the color evaluation of separately located
color registration marks with respect to a printer black
registration mark. There is no suggestion that the
misregistration should be evaluated based on a process black
registration mark as claimed. Therefore, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 9-15.
Independent claim 16 essentially contains all the
features of claim 9 with the additional recitation of printing
and examining a black ink registration mark along with the
process black registration mark. Therefore, we do not sustain
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007