Appeal 2007-1480
Application 10/667,078
there is no motivation to add the other structure of Wen, we are at a loss as
to why it would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of
the invention to have determined the edges using the system of Endo alone
as Appellant admits to achieve the recited method. Therefore, Appellant’s
argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of dependent
claim 10.
With respect to dependent claims 11 and 12, Appellant argues that
Miyakawa does not disclose altering the amount of ink dispensed based on
determination of the brightness of the print medium. The Examiner
maintains that the determination of the medium type may be based upon
light transmissivity or reflectivity as taught by Miyakawa (Answer 16). We
agree with the Examiner. Therefore, Appellant’s argument is not
persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of dependent claim 11 and
dependent claim 12 grouped therewith.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, we have sustained the rejection of claims 1-9 under
35 U.S.C. § 102, and we have sustained the rejection of claims 10-12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013