Appeal No. 2006-1435 Page 6
Application No. 10/352,299
identified a black line in the drawings or a surface on which the
bar code is positioned as the claimed platen. Appellant argues
that the examiner has provided no evidence to support the
position that these elements are platens [reply brief, page 3].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims
21, 22 and 27-33. We agree with appellant that Philyaw does not
disclose anything that corresponds to the claimed platen.
Although neither appellant nor the examiner proposes a definition
for the term “platen,” it has a conventional definition in this
art which is not met by the substrates on which the bar codes of
Philyaw are affixed. The examiner’s apparent definition of the
term “platen” is clearly unreasonable in light of its
conventional definition and in light of its manner of use in
appellant’s specification.
We now consider the rejection of claims 27, 29, 30 and 31
as being anticipated by the disclosure of Trulson. The examiner
has indicated how the invention of these claims is deemed to be
fully met by the disclosure of Trulson [answer, pages 5-6].
Since appellant has only made arguments with respect to
independent claim 27, we will consider claim 27 as
representative of all the claims subject to this rejection.
Appellant argues that the examiner’s position that the source of
light in Trulson could be a UV source is incorrect because
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007