Appeal Number: 2007-0385
Application Number: 10/375,067
different jam-detection reference time intervals for different types of sheets. In
addition, because Sakamaki detects jams using the compared actual and reference
timing intervals, and does not teach or suggest changing timing intervals to prevent
jams due to different size sheets, we find that even if we combined the teachings of
Sugiyama and Sakamaki, we would not arrive at the claimed invention.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed to articulate a
prima facie case of obviousness of claim 1. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007