Appeal No. 2006-1435 Page 8
Application No. 10/352,299
We now consider the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-
20 as being anticipated by the disclosure of Liang. The examiner
has indicated how the invention of these claims is deemed to be
fully met by the disclosure of Liang [answer, pages 6-7]. Since
appellant has only made arguments with respect to independent
claim 1, we will consider claim 1 as representative of all the
claims subject to this rejection. Similar to the rejection based
on Philyaw, appellant argues that the examiner apparently
considers the scanner apparatus illustrated in figures 10 and 11
of Liang to correspond to both the claimed carriage and the
claimed scanner apparatus which is asserted to be improper
[brief, page 8]. The examiner disagrees with appellant’s
argument for the same reasons discussed above with respect to
Philyaw [answer, page 10]. Appellant responds by referring to
the arguments considered above with respect to Philyaw [reply
brief, page 4].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5,
7-13 and 15-20 as anticipated by Liang. Since all the arguments
with respect to this rejection are the same as the arguments we
considered above with respect to the rejection of these claims
based on Philyaw, we sustain this rejection for the same reasons
discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1 based on
Philyaw.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007