Appeal No. 2002-0146
Application No. 09/110,128
claim 1 is not patentable over the applied prior art for reasons
discussed above, we also sustain the rejection of claims 4-7 for
the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, appellant again notes
that Kobayashi does not overcome the deficiencies of Iwakawa
discussed above, however, Kobayashi was not applied in the
rejection of claims 8 and 9. Appellant also argues that the
applied prior art does not disclose or suggest moving the array
downstream from the center of the platen roller by a range
greater than 0.3 mm to 0.8 mm as claimed [brief, page 10].
The examiner never specifically addresses this
limitation. In the rejection the examiner simply states that
ranges that touch can render the claimed invention obvious
[answer, page 3]. This statement is not understood because the
claimed range of greater than 0.3 mm to 0.8 mm does not touch the
range of Iwakawa which is 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm. In the answer the
examiner simply states that the prior art need only disclose a
range overlapping or touching the claimed range [id., page 4].
As just discussed, however, the claimed range does not overlap or
touch the range disclosed in Iwakawa. Finally, the examiner
states that the artisan would have a reasonable degree of
expectation that numbers touching or only very slightly outside
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007