Appeal No. 1999-0043
Application 08/599,875
are substituted with the movable heads of Gilovich"
(Examiner's Answer, p. 6). The Examiner finds, as to the
three regions recited in claims 4 and 8, that Daniels teaches
switching in three regions and finds that "[i]t is inherent
when the references are combined to space the regions in a
circumferential direction along a single radius because the
heads of Gilovich are spaced this way" (Examiner's Answer, p.
4).
Claims 2, 5-7, and 9-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Daniels and Gilovich, as
applied to claims 1, 4, and 8, further in view of Mizunoe.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Daniels and Gilovich, further in view of
Mizunoe and Kitahara.2
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 10) and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 16) for a statement of the
The Examiner rejects claim 3 under § 103(a) "as being2
unpatentable over Daniels et al[.] in view of Gilovich as
applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Mizunoe et
al[.] and Kitahara" (final rejection, p. 4; examiner's answer,
p. 6). However, claim 3 does not depend on claim 2 and, thus,
the reference to the rejection of claim 2 is inappropriate.
Further, claim 2 is rejected over Daniels, Gilovich, and
Mizunoe, not Daniels and Gilovich as stated.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007