Appeal No. 2004-0316
Application 09/136,619
corresponding to the digital image data are displayed in printing
on the opposite surface to the digital data recording surface,
wherein markings for specifying images corresponding to the print
images are displayed in printing together with the print images.
The following reference is relied on by the examiner:
Wen et al. (Wen) 6,019,151 Feb. 1, 2000
(filing date Jan. 7, 1997)
Claims 1, 3, 10, 12, 16, 18, 22 and 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Wen. On the other
hand, dependent claims 11, 17, 23 and 25-28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies
upon Wen alone.1
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief (no reply brief has been
filed) for the appellant's positions, and to the final rejection
and answer for the examiner's positions.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the final
rejection and answer, we sustain both stated rejections of the
1 We note in passing that the subject matter of independent
claims 10 and 16 on appeal appear to be substantially identical,
thus not meeting the requirement of Rule 75(b) that there be
substantial distinctions between pending claims.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007