Appeal No. 2006-0456 Page 7
Application No. 10/410,778
fourth roller in Baruch thereby creating two nips that do not
share a common roller.
From our review of the record, we find, for the reasons
which follow, that an artisan would not have been motivated to
modify Young in view of Baruch and Kuo to arrive at the claimed
invention, as advanced by appellants.
In Young, the nip is offset so that the baffle 203 and
surface 204 reverse bends the sheet for straightening (col. 5,
lines 56-58). It is further disclosed (col. 6, lines 8-11) that
“[t]he decurler includes off-set nips from a vertical plane that
in combination with output baffles apply reverse bending to the
sheets in order to straighten them.” From the disclosure of
Young that the structure of the off-set nips and baffles causes
the decurling to occur, we find that an artisan would not have
been motivated to replace the off-set nips with rollers in a
substantially linear formation, as advanced by the examiner.
We are not persuaded by the reasoning provided by the
examiner (answer, page 4) that “simplicity in design the curl
control apparatus and to permit more precise controlling of the
amount of decurling on a printed medium,” because we have no
evidence that more precise control of the decurling would occur.
The reasons provided by the examiner do not provide a motivation
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007