Appeal No. 2002-1443 Page 8
Application No. 09/251,833
heater “[m]ost of the heat radiated by the elements is directed by the channels through
the slots so as to produce a parallel row of heat lines or stripes on the surface of plate
17. That is, the stripes are hot spots and, therefore, the heating is uneven and non-
uniform” (declaration, page 3). The examiner did not comment upon these assertions,
and thus they stand uncontroverted on the record. It therefore is our view that even if
the proposed modification were made, the result would not be the subject matter recited
in claim 1, that is, a heater so disposed as to provide substantially uniform heat to the
platen. The rejection therefore would not be sustainable on this basis.
Furthermore, as we stated above, we consider the Adamson system not to
provide uniform heating to the platen, which the examiner asserted would have
provided the suggestion to make the proposed modification. Absent such suggestion,
we fail to perceive any incentive in either Adamson or Person which would have led
one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the heating elements disclosed in Adamson
with those of Person.
For the two reasons set forth above, it is our opinion that the applied references
do not establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter
recited in claim 13. This being the case, we will not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 13 and, it follows, of dependent claims 14-19, 22, 24 and 25.
Independent claim 28, which stands rejected on the same grounds, also contains
the requirement for the platen to be “substantially uniformly heated” by the infrared
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007