Appeal No. 2003-0257
Application 09/472,054
The appellants argue that “using sensors in place of the
lateral register stops would suggest the use of contacting
sensors which also act as lateral register stops” (brief,
page 11). Unlike a lateral register stop, which functions by
contacting a surface, a CCD functions in response to light
striking its surface. Muth, therefore, would not have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to use the CCD as a lateral register
stop.
The appellants argue that “there is no disclosure or
suggestion in Muth that it is absolutely necessary that any
sensors in place of the lateral register stops, are non-
contacting sensors” (brief, page 11). The relevant issue is not
whether all sensors referred to by Muth for use in place of the
lateral register stops are non-contacting sensors but, rather,
whether Muth’s disclosed CCD has non-contacting sensors. As
discussed above, the sensors in Muth’s CCD are non-contacting
sensors.
For the above reasons we find that the device claimed in the
appellants’ claim 1 is anticipated by Muth. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejections of this claim and claims 2, 4 and 14-17
that stand or fall therewith.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007