Appeal No. 2001-0877
Application 08/530,434
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived by appellants [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 31 and
33 based on Siegel and the admitted prior art. Although each of
independent claims 1, 7 and 31 recites that the image on the
document is to be read facing away from the document table and
Siegel has the image on the document facing the document table,
the examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan
to have the document in Siegel face the other direction because
it would be easier to place the document on the table in this
manner. The examiner also notes that the admitted prior art
discloses copying images placed in this direction. The examiner
finds that Siegel teaches the claimed height measurements in the
same manner as Fujii which was discussed above [answer,
pages 5-7].
With respect to claims 1 and 2, appellants argue that
since Siegel relates to an apparatus in which the document is
placed face down, Siegel is fundamentally different from the
claimed invention and would not be considered in solving a
problem related to copiers in which the document is placed face
up. Appellants argue that there is no reason to combine Siegel
with the admitted prior art which relates to face up copying
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007