Appeal No. 2001-0877
Application 08/530,434
[brief, pages 27-28]. The examiner responds that it would have
been obvious to combine the teachings of Siegel and the admitted
prior art because they both relate to copying images from books
and the face up direction is easier for placement and for the
prevention of damage to the book [answer, pages 17-18].
Appellants respond that the examiner has failed to consider the
claimed invention as a whole [reply brief, pages 7-8].
We will not sustain any of the examiner’s obviousness
rejections which are all fundamentally based on the teachings of
Siegel and the admitted prior art because we agree with
appellants that there is no proper motivation for changing the
book copying device of Siegel so that the image on the book faces
away from the document table. Siegel discloses a copier in which
the book is placed face down on the document table. Such a
copier is designed so that all the optical components are
included within the cabinet of the copier below the document
table. We agree with appellants that a copier which requires
that documents or books be placed face up is fundamentally
different from face down copiers and requires a completely
different principle of operation. The examiner’s motivation for
changing the operation of the Siegel copier is not persuasive
because, under the examiner’s reasoning, there would be no basis
-12-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007