Appeal No. 1998-0688
Application 08/274,158
This is a decision on appeal from the rejection of claims
1, 4, 6 through 12, 15, and 17 through 27. Claims 2, 3, 5,
13, 14, and 16 have been canceled.
Appellant’s invention is generally directed to an image
processor for detecting documents and in particular, to the
surface optical properties of the document covering means that
covers the documents. As disclosed on page 12 of the
specification, different components of the image processor,
such as the transparent plate, the document covering means,
and the image sensor, are the same as those in conventional
copy machines. The disclosure on pages 7 and 8 teaches that
the contrast and copying quality is decreased for a regular
reflectance of the document covering surface of less than 1.5%
when the document is transparent. Additionally, the copying
quality is taught to be inferior in the case of an irregular
reflectance of the document covering surface of more than 40%
when the document has dark solid portions. Appellant on pages
6 and 12 of the specification teaches that for uniform copying
quality, the lower surface of the document covering means has
a regular reflectance of 1.5% to 40% and an irregular
reflectance intensity of N4 to N8.5 in the Munsell color
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007