Appeal No. 1999-1931
Application No. 08/734,319
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective positions of appellant
and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that, in accordance with appellant’s grouping at page 3 of the
brief, all claims will stand or fall together.
It is the examiner’s position that Monma discloses the claimed subject matter but for
1. an edge sensor operatively connected to the electronic subsystem for sensing image
edges and 2. a developing station, a transfer station and a fuser for transferring the image
to a recording medium. The examiner employs Hirota for the teaching of an image forming
apparatus having an edge detector for detecting an image edge in the main scanning
direction for the purpose of smoothing or emphasizing the edge. Nye is employed for its
disclosure of a color printer having a charging unit, a development station, a liquefaction
stage and a transfixing station.
The examiner concludes that since all of these references are in the same field of
endeavor, it would have been obvious to implement an edge detector as taught by
Hirota, and the various processing stations as taught by Nye, in the image recording
apparatus of Monma for the purpose of improving image reproduction.
Appellant offers no argument as to the application of Nye for its disclosure of the
various processing stations in an electrophotographic printing machine and we take
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007