Appeal No. 1999-2851
Application No. 09/127,347
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant argues that the claimed invention is based upon the discovery that the
tension of the ink web is a function of the overall diameter of the take-up spool, and that
variations in the tension of the ink web create corresponding variations in the web velocity,
and in turn adversely affect print registration and the quality of the printed image. (See
brief at pages 4-5.) Appellant argues that the prior cassette construction was to provide
as much ink web as possible to increase the operational life of the cassette which caused
a significant change in the overall diameter of the take-up spool resulting in a degradation
of the print quality. (See brief at page 5.) Appellant argues that the examiner, is
conclusion of obviousness is based upon hindsight. (See brief at page 6.) We agree
with appellant that the examiner has not provided a convincing line of reasoning to modify
the prior art cassette construction. Appellant argues that the prior art cassette teaches
away from the claimed invention. (See brief at page 6.) We disagree with appellant that
the Hevenor teaches away from the claimed invention, but we do agree that Hevenor alone
does not provide teaching or suggestion of the desirability of the invention as claimed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007