Appeal No. 1998-0688
Application 08/274,158
we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 102.
Turning to the rejection of claims 10 through 12, 15, and
17 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hosaka and Sato,
Appellant on page 9 of the brief provides the same arguments
as pointed out with regard to claim 1. Appellant on page 10
further states that Hosaka’s “paint having a small
reflectance” would have a reflectance of less than 1% which is
different from the 1.5% to 20% range as recited in independent
claim 10.
We note that independent claim 10 includes a “document
covering means having a substantially achromatic document
covering surface.” Additionally, the document cover surface
has the same range of “regular reflectance of from 1.5% to
20%” and a “relative intensity of irregularly reflected light
. . . of from N4 to N8.5 in terms of lightness in the Munsell
color system” as recited in Appellant’s claim 1.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one
having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the
claimed invention by the express teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by implications contained in such
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007