Appeal 2007-1270
Application 10/607,873
Appellants' invention relates to a method of marking media for optical
sensing of media advancement. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed
invention, and it reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
advancing media; and,
marking the media as the media advances to allow for one-
dimensional optical sensing of advancement of the media while
accommodating for lateral movement of the media.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Christiansen US 6,411,324 B1 Jun. 25, 2002
Miyano US 6,712,536 B2 Mar. 30, 2004
Claims 1 through 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Christiansen.
Claims 5 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Christiansen in view of Miyano.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed October 6, 2006) and to
Appellants' Brief (filed February 19, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed October
25, 2006) for the respective arguments.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will affirm both the anticipation
rejection of claims 1 through 4 and also the obviousness rejection of claims
5 through 8.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013