Appeal No. 2000-0558 Page 8
Application No. 08/912,585
thus would not yield the subject matter recited in claim 2 on
appeal.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, the examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 2, and of dependent
claims 3, 7 and 9, will not be sustained.
--Claim 8--
We affirm the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over applicant's admitted prior art in
view of Hakanson.
Claim 8 requires that the electrically conductive film is
coated on the base plate and is connected to an electrical
ground integral with the feeding mechanism.
It is the examiner's position that it would have been
obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
provide the prior art cassette with a conductive coating as
taught by Hakanson to reduce electrostatic buildup (answer,
pages 3 and 4).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007