Appeal No. 2001-1417
Application No. 09/042,520
to impermissible speculation or unfounded assumptions or
rationales to supply deficiencies in the factual basis of the
rejection before us. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ
173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968),
rehearing denied, 390 U.S. 1000 (1968).
We recognize that the Examiner (Answer, pages 5 and 6)
offers an alternative approach in which, assuming Bronstein is
not construed as disclosing a stationary imaging device, the
skilled artisan would nevertheless have found it obvious to
modify Bronstein to use a stationary imaging device such as the
stationary laser devices of Ketley and Nishioka. The Examiner
further asserts (id.) that Williams, added to the proposed
combination to address the “beam bundle” limitation of claim 1,
also discloses a stationary imaging device as illustrated in the
Figure 9 embodiment described beginning at column 11, line 10 of
Williams.
In our view, the disclosures of Ketley, Nishioka, and
Williams merely establish that stationary imaging devices exist
in printing devices. The mere fact that the prior art may be
modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make
the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007