Appeal No. 1999-1117
Application 08/674,308
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Caruso, Asada, and Saito, further in view of
Okinoshima.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Caruso, Asada, and Saito, further in view of
Morehouse.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 5) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 8)
(pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
Examiner's position, and to the brief (Paper No. 7) for a
statement of Appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The only issue is whether the claims recite that both
start of scan detection and beam intensity control are derived
from the output of a single photosensor. Appellant relies
solely on this argument for patentability of the claims. The
Examiner states that the feature of only one photosensor for
producing both a start of scan signal and beam intensity
signal is not recited in the claims (FR8; EA9-10), which
explains why the Examiner's rejection does address this
feature. We agree with Appellant's findings that none of the
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007