Appeal No. 2001-1417
Application No. 09/042,520
With respect to the obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1, Appellants assert the Examiner’s failure to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness since all of the claim
limitations are not taught or suggested by the applied prior art
references. In particular, Appellants assert (Brief, pages 10
and 11) that the Examiner has misinterpreted the disclosure of
Bronstein as disclosing a stationary imaging device as claimed.
After careful review of the Bronstein reference, we are in
general agreement with Appellants’ position as stated in the
Brief. As asserted by Appellants, we find no basis for the
Examiner’s conclusion that the unlabeled box between the spinner
190 and the sensor 110b represents a stationary imaging device.
In our view, the passages at column 4, lines 16-18 and column 8,
lines 18-20 of Bronstein, cited by the Examiner in support of the
asserted interpretation, merely indicate that a laser beam is
scanned across the cylinder drum surface with the aid of a
spinner. We find no indication in the cited passages, or
elsewhere in the disclosure of Bronstein, of the nature of the
source of the laser beam pulse, let alone any description which
would satisfy the stationary imaging device limitation in the
specific combination set forth in appealed claim 1. In order for
us to sustain the Examiner’s rejection, we would need to resort
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007