Appeal No. 1999-1629
Application 08/510,491
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herbert, Nakagawa, and
Fisher.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Herbert, Nakagawa, Fisher, and Dagna.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 11) and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 18) (pages referred to as "EA__")
for a statement of the Examiner's position, and to the brief
(Paper No. 17) (pages referred to as "Br__") and the reply
brief (Paper No. 20) (pages referred to as "RBr__") for a
statement of Appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Grouping of claims
Appellant argues two groupings of claims (Br4):
(1) claims 1, 3, 7, and 9, which stand or fall together with
claim 1; and (2) claims 4-6, 8, and 10, which stand or fall
together with claim 4.
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 9
Claim 1 defines a controller that operates a set of
consecutively disposed nozzles, the set being less than all
the nozzles in the row, to print a postal mark on a mail item,
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007