Appeal No. 1998-0620
Application 08/359,089
Examiner has provided no reasons why it would have been
obvious to provide a unitary member since the Examiner
considers that such limitation is taught by Honma.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
claim 21 or any of dependent claims 4-6, 9-13, 19, 20, or
23-29, which depend directly or indirectly from claims 1, 7,
or 21. The rejection of claims 4-6, 9-13, 19-21, and 23-29 is
reversed.
The Examiner relies on Costrop to teach a scanning body
having a platen assembly location surface or registration
member as recited in claims 2, 15, and 31. Appellant
discloses that a ride-on system was known (specification,
page 6, line 33 to page 7, line 11, incorporating Costrop by
reference). However, Costrop does not cure the deficiency of
Honma as to the "unitary illumination registration member" in
independent claims 7 and 21. Therefore, the rejection of
claims 2, 15, and 31 is reversed.
The Examiner relies on Igarashi to teach a lamp locating
member registered on the light source location surface as
recited in claims 14 and 30. However, Igarashi does not cure
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007