Ex Parte KANAMORI - Page 2




         Appeal No. 2002-0146                                                       
         Application No. 09/110,128                                                 

         elements arranged in an array in a main scanning direction, and a          
         platen roller forming a nip between the platen roller and the              
         thermal head and adapted for pressing a stencil.                           
         Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:                           
         1.   A master making device, comprising:                                   
              a thermal head including a plurality of heating elements              
              arranged in an array in a main scanning direction; and                
              a platen roller forming a nip between said platen roller and          
              said thermal head and adapted for pressing a stencil, said            
              platen roller being rotatable and adapted for moving a                
              stencil in a subscanning direction perpendicular to the main          
              scanning direction;                                                   
              wherein a position of said array in the subscanning                   
              direction is downstream by 0.2 mm to 0.8 mm from a center of          
              said platen roller in the subscanning direction and wherein           
              said array is located entirely in a perpendicular projection          
              of an area formed by said nip to thereby reduce a length of           
              a perforated portion of the stencil to be moved in said nip.          
                                                                                   
              The examiner relies on the following references:                      
         Iwakawa et al. (Iwakawa)     JP 3-175056        July 30, 1991              
         Kobayashi                    JP 7-156520        June 20, 1995              
         The admitted prior art described in appellant’s specification.             
         Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  As                       
         evidence of obviousness the examiner offers the admitted prior             
         art in view of Iwakawa with respect to claims 1, 4 and 7-9, and            
         the examiner adds Kobayashi with respect to claims 2, 3, 5 and 6.          
         Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the                       
         examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the            
         respective details thereof.                                                

                                         2                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007