Appeal No. 2006-1435 Page 5
Application No. 10/352,299
reason to have a “carriage” in the reader of Philyaw [reply
brief, pages 2-3].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5,
7-10, 13-18, 20 and 24-26. The only issue with respect to these
claims is whether Philyaw discloses the claimed carriage. We
agree with the examiner that Philyaw meets the invention of
argued claim 1. Since light source 3702 is “carried” within
scanner 3700 and is attached to printed circuit board 2902, we
find, like the examiner, that the illumination device is disposed
on a carriage of the scanner apparatus within the broadest
reasonable interpretation of claim 1. To the extent that
appellant may believe that claim 1 requires that the carriage be
separate and distinct from the scanner apparatus or separately
movable from the scanner apparatus, we do not agree. We find
nothing in claim 1 which requires these restrictions on the
carriage.
With respect to representative claim 21, in addition to
the arguments considered above with respect to claim 1, appellant
argues that Philyaw does not identify, nor has the examiner
identified any element in Philyaw as a platen [brief, pages 10-
11]. The examiner responds that the object to be scanned in
Philyaw is positioned on a platen and points to “platen” 1602 or
2506 [answer, page 11]. Appellant responds that the examiner has
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007