Appeal No. 1999-1115
Application No. 08/821,217
Accordingly, Carbone provides an explicit teaching of substituting an optical sensor for a printhead in
order to turn a printer into a scanner.
When this explicit teaching is viewed in light of Hirano’s teaching of improving a printer by mounting
a printhead and motor integrally on a movable module, the artisan would clearly have been led to
substitute an optical reader for the ink jet recording head 31 in Hirano in order to optionally turn the
printer of Hirano into a scanner.
Since the prior art suggests doing what instant claim 1 recites, we find the instant claimed subject
matter to be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Appellants argue that a “reading head is different from a scanning head” and that the prior art
recording head “is not relevant to the present invention” [principal brief-page 2]. However, as
explained supra, the prior art explicitly suggests substituting an optical sensor for a printhead in order to
turn a printer into a scanner.
Appellants also argue that Hirano “never hinted that mounting the motor on the moving module can
save space” [principal brief-page 2]. We disagree. Clearly, compactness was a
feature sought by Hirano. See column 1, lines 57-58 for example: “a recording apparatus for which the
custody space during non-use can be made small.”
To whatever extent appellants are attempting to make a “commercial success” argument at page 2
of the principal brief, in discussing an enclosed product brochure for an Avision scanner,
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007