Appeal No. 1998-0889
Application 08/006,585
reasons, the rejections of claims 3 and 8 are sustained. Claims 6
and 7 are not separately argued and fall together with claim 3.
Claims 12-15 and 19-22 are not separately argued and fall together
with claim 8. Thus, the rejections of claims 6, 7, 12-15, and 19-22
are also sustained.
The plotter of claim 4 is taught by Otsuka, as discussed in
connection with claim 1. The rejection of claim 4 is sustained.
Claim 5 recites a dot matrix printer. The Examiner takes
Official Notice of the equivalence of a dot matrix printer to the
printers in Hakamatsuka and Otsuka and concludes that it would have
been obvious to replace the printer of Hakamatsuka with a dot matrix
printer (EA6). The Examiner points to Appellant's statement that the
printing system can take a variety of forms, such as a dot matrix,
bubble jet printer, a laser printer, or a plotter (EA6). Appellant
argues that there is nothing in the record which discloses a dot
matrix printer for printing on a card during a client interview
(Br20). In our opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art, having
been taught in Hakamatsuka to use sublimation transfer and thermal
transfer to print on a card and having been taught in Otsuka to use a
plotter to print on a card, would have been motivated to use other
conventional printing devices, such as a dot matrix printer, to print
- 15 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007