Appeal No. 2000-0412
Application No. 09/046,200
[T]he use of two guide rails is superfluous since Itoh provides a teaching
of a successful flat bed scanner having a contact type image [sensor]
recessed in a nest 14 which has a single guide rail. The use of plural
guide rails provides no patentable advantage. Rather it is a design choice
to [have] more than one guide rail when the prior art shows utility with only
one guide rails [sic, rail]. The use of plural guide rails provides no
patentable feature.
Therefore, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
in view of Itoh to use a plurality of guide rails for design or aesthetic
purposes when the use of one performs the same function as a plurality of
guide rails.
Here, we find no support in the teachings of Itoh to support the examiner’s finding of
design or aesthetic purposes in the use of two guide rails as stated in the supplemental
examiner’s answer. The mere fact that the examiner has cited the teachings of
Tsuchiya without specifically including Tsuchiya in the rejection and providing a line of
reasoning does not mean that the teachings of Tsuchiya are conclusive evidence that
plural guide rails were common knowledge and that they were desirable over a single
guide rail system as taught by Itoh. The examiner has cited to no portion of Tsuchiya
other than Figure 3A generally.
Appellant merely maintains that the guide rails and the lubricating pads serve
different functions at page 2 of the brief and that three supporting points can be held
more accurately and more closely with respect to the window. We find no specific
argument with respect to the prior art to Itoh in appellant’s brief. Appellant argues that
the guide in Itoh is different from the lubricating guides in the present invention and that
the lubricating guides of 52 (a) and 52(b) of the present invention rest on the scan
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007