Appeal No. 1999-0344
Application 08/250,770
except for the responsive language to the chopped data, and the print control means
generating the horizontal sink signal at the end of claim 1 on appeal.
In response to appellant’s presentation for the first time in the request for
rehearing further information about what appellant’s admit to being in the admitted prior
art Figure 1, as well as what the laser printing arts generally recognize, we have
reconsidered our original opinion but come to the same conclusion as to the
unpatentability of the subject matter of claim 1 within 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon the
same applied prior art, appellant’s admitted prior art Figure 1, in view of Tomita and
Hayashi. In light of the new emphasis presented in the request as outlined earlier, the
importance of the Hayashi reference becomes paramount. Since the admitted prior art
Figure 1 utilizes a laser as a light source for the laser beam of the claim, the
corresponding teachings of Hayashi are more significant than ever. Figures 1A and 1B
of Hayashi correspond to a complete laser imaged electrophotographic printing system,
only part of which is correspondingly shown in appellant’s prior art Figure 1.
In contrast to the prior art approach associated with appellants’s prior art Figure
1 permitting the user to change the bias voltage of the generator 70, appellant’s
disclosed invention in representative Figure 3 takes the approach of controlling the
amount of light illuminating the photosensitive drum by chopping the video data to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007