Appeal No. 2000-2232
Application 08/483,928
a common housing. In addition, Appellant cites the 7
Examiner's statement "The proposed obviousness-type double8
patenting rejection over the claims of the parent '101 patent
in view of Lemelson '563 does not teach or suggest the claimed
features of supporting the printer in a common housing."
Appellant then asserts that the sole motivation asserted9
by the Examiner is that one of ordinary skill in the art at10
the time of the invention would have thought to add the
printer "so that hard/copies can be given to friends and
relatives for memory." Appellant states that this motivation
has two problems: First, that the proposed motivation would
not motivate one to include the printer in the same housing,
as a printer coupled remotely would have sufficed. Second,
that the Examiner merely identifies a benefit of the claimed
invention, which militates in favor of patentability, rather
than a motivation that the Examiner has proven was known to
7Reply Brief, page 5.
8 Answer, page 22.
9Reply brief, page 5.
10 Answer, pages 6 and 9.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007