Appeal No. 2006-1435 Page 11
Application No. 10/352,299
there is no motivation to modify Liang as proposed by the
examiner because a platen does not appear to be needed or
required in any of the devices depicted and described by Liang
[brief, page 11].
We will sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 24-26
because they do not recite a platen and the limitations of these
claims have not otherwise been argued by appellant. We will not
sustain the rejection of claims 14, 21-23 and 27-34 because Liang
fails to disclose a platen for the same reasons discussed above
with respect to the rejection of these claims based on Philyaw.
We now consider the rejection of claims 1-34 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Sasanuma. The examiner has
indicated how the invention of these claims is deemed to be
rendered obvious by the teachings of Sasanuma [answer, pages 8-
10]. Since appellant has argued these claims as a single group,
we will consider claim 1 as representative of all the claims
subject to this rejection. Appellant argues that the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because
the examiner has not pointed out where in the art it is taught
that a UV light is an art-recognized equivalent of a non-UV
light. Appellant argues that they are not equivalent because
they can not be used interchangeably and produce the same result
[brief, pages 9 and 12]. The examiner responds that since
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007