Appeal No. 2001-1336
Application No. 08/736,042
Examiner’s reasoning and to the appeal brief (Paper No. 31, filed
May 11, 2000) and the reply brief (Paper No. 33, filed October 2,
2000) for Appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The Examiner relies on Kimura for teaching different
elements of a printer except for the claimed manual paper feed
tray (answer, pages 4 & 5). The Examiner, however, takes the
position that the use of a manual feed tray with a substantially
horizontal path is known in the art (answer, page 5). The
Examiner further relies on Kono for teaching a sensor in the
paper path adjacent the tray and on Lee for teaching a video
controller and a print control unit (id.).
Appellant argues that the Examiner, in relying on Kimura for
teaching adjustment of the transfer voltage, improperly
associates Kimura’s manual adjustment performed by the user with
the claimed changing of the transfer voltage depending on the
path a sheet of recording medium takes (brief, page 7).
Appellant further asserts that the proposed combination of Kimura
with Kono and Lee lacks proper motivation and would not have
resulted in the claimed structure (brief, pages 6 & 7 and reply
brief, pages 3 & 4).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007