Appeal No. 2000-0154 Page 4
Application No. 08/942,954
Yaguchi 5,151,743 Sep. 29,
1992
Sugaya et al. (“Sugaya”) 5,179,417 Jan.
12, 1993.
Claims 21-23 and 25-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Sugaya in view of Naeser. Claim 24 stands
rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Sugaya in view of
Naeser further in view of Yaguchi.
OPINION
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 21-36. Accordingly, we
reverse.
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or
appellant in toto, we address their main point of contention.
First, "relying on the description spanning col.l, line 13
though co1.2, line 38 and Fig.4,” (Examiner’s Answer, ¶ 11),
the examiner asserts, “Sugaya et al. describes the convention
[sic] use of a continuous web type duplex printing device
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007