Appeal No. 1999-0344
Application 08/250,770
Page 7 of appellant’s request states that the admitted prior art utilized a single
light emitting element, i.e., a laser diode. This is a more explicit statement as to what
appellant’s admitted prior art utilized than we perceived from our original understanding
of the invention in the specification as filed as it pertained to prior art Figure 1.
Appellant presents the view at the bottom of page 8 of the request that the laser diodes
of the admitted prior art ideally printed a document with even toner density throughout
the document due to the use of one laser diode. Appellant also states at page 10 of the
request that in the admitted prior art, it was understood and well known in the art that a
laser printer has high resolution and printed a document with even toner density.
Appellant also characterizes, at the bottom of page 9 of the request, that the problem
associated with the admitted prior art was directed to the amount of toner attached on
the drum during a developing stage being determined by a bias voltage, where the
intensity of this bias voltage was controlled by the user by adjusting a terminal on a
control panel. This is consistent with our understanding from the identified portions of
the admitted prior art in the specification that we noted at the top of page 4 of our
original opinion. The user’s changing of the bias voltage was characterized at page 10
of the request as merely changing the density of the toner on the printed document not
the uniformity of the density.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007