Appeal No. 1998-1441
Application No. 08/294,779
producing a reference signal, with the optical scanning means and electric field means
synchronizing with the reference signal.
Shibata suggests such a “detecting means” (20; Fig. 1) which generates a
synchronizing signal for the beam deflected by polygon mirror 16. See Shibata, column 2,
lines 40-61. In our view it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for use with
a polygonal mirror as disclosed by Tsukada, and to use the feedback signal for
synchronizing the optical scanning means and electric field means. We therefore sustain
the rejection of claim 32.
For the rejection of claims 5, 11, 12, 34-37, 39-42, 51, 60, and 79, the examiner
adds the reference of Moddel. Appellants contest the rejection on pages 26 and 27 of the
Brief, but note that it is unclear to what teachings in Moddel the rejection refers. The
examiner responds, principally on page 21 of the Answer, to where the particular teachings
are submitted to reside. Upon questioning at the oral hearing, counsel for appellants did
not fault the teachings of Moddel as applied, but relied on the arguments with respect to
the rejection of base claim 55.
Because the examiner has set out a reasonable prima facie case for obviousness
of the claims which has not been rebutted by appellants, we sustain the rejection of claims
5, 11, 12, 34-37, 39-42, 51, 60, and 79. We do not consider Winsor as being necessary in
the rejection, but merely cumulative.
-14-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007