Appeal No. 2001-0877
Application 08/530,434
to ever have face down copying since face up copying would
preserve the integrity of books. Obviously, the art has
continued to use face down copying because of the advantages
apparently obtained through face down copying. There is no
teaching or suggestion on the record before us to modify the
copier of Siegel to use face up copying except to reconstruct the
claimed invention in hindsight. Since we agree with appellants
that the modification of Siegel proposed by the examiner is not
suggested by the admitted prior art, all the obviousness
rejections before us fail.
In summary, the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 7 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) is sustained with respect to claims 1 and 2, but
is not sustained with respect to claim 7. The rejection of
claims 1-27 and 31-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not sustained.
Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-27 and
31-33 is affirmed-in-part.
-13-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007