Appeal No. 2005-2140
Application No. 09/943,355
remaining on the sheet after image readout is released when the
sheet is exposed to the erasing light source. Therefore, claims
19 and 20 would have been obvious over Saotome II.
We have rejected only claims 1, 9, 19, and 20, as the
remaining claims would require further references for their
limitations. For example, we have no evidence to show the
obviousness of using an organic electroluminescent erasing light,
as recited 2 and 10, nor a light diffusing transparent sheet with
light sources at the edges thereof for the erasing light source,
as recited in claims 3 through 6 and 11 through 14. We leave the
search for such evidence to the examiner.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. A new ground of rejection has
been entered under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for claims
6 and 14, and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for claims 1, 9, 19, and 20.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg.
49960 (August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September
7, 2004)). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007