Appeal No. 2000-1972
Application No. 08/928,002
over Anderson and of claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Yokono.
The Rejection of Claims 6-9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Each of claims 6-9 depends directly from claim 1 and
each recites that the sensor is adapted to sense a property of
the label material. In claim 6, the sensor is adapted to
sense a magnetic field; in claim 7, the sensor is adapted to
sense an electromagnetic field; in claim 8, the sensor is
adapted to sense infrared photons; and in claim 9, the sensor
is adapted to sense fluorescent photons. At page 6, lines 17-
21, of the answer, the examiner asserts that such sensors are
notoriously well-known in the printer art, and that the sensor
is selected to sense the ink depending upon the type of ink,
as admitted in appellant’s specification at page 12.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 6-9.
There is no evidence supporting the examiner’s assertion that
the sensors in question are notoriously well-known in the
printer art. Furthermore, at page 12 of appellant’s
specification, appellant merely acknowledges that various
types of sensors are known. There is no admission that it was
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007