Appeal No. 2004-2180
Application No. 10/131,020
said first amount and longer than said second amount
when said media to be imaged is identified to said
control system as heavy or thick.
The examiner relies on the following prior art references
as evidence of unpatentability:
Nakazato et al. 6,094,546 Jul. 25, 2000
(Nakazato)
Watanabe et al. JP 2002-55554 Feb. 20, 2002
(Watanabe)(published
JP application)
Claims 1 and 2 on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Nakazato in view of Watanabe.2
(Answer at 3-7.)
We affirm this rejection.3 Because we are in complete
agreement with the examiner’s analysis, we adopt the factual
findings and legal conclusions as set forth in the answer as our
own and add the following comments for emphasis.
The appellant’s main argument in this appeal is that the
claimed invention, unlike the prior art, includes a heating
2 We rely on the December 2003 English language translation
(Schreiber Translations, Inc.) of record.
3 The appellant submits that the appealed claims stand or
fall together. (Appeal brief at 4.) Accordingly, we confine
our discussion to independent claim 1. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)
(2003)(effective Apr. 21, 1995).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007