Appeal 2007-1544
Application 09/984,227
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner admits that LeClair does not
teach or suggest setting a predetermined area for a test print (Examiner’s
Ans. 3:15-16), but asserts that Henderson teaches this feature, in that an area
of an image passing under a densitometer meets the limitation (Examiner’s
Ans. 3:18-19). The Examiner points to column 5 of Henderson as
explaining that one of the densitometers will have an opportunity to examine
an area of solid toner density, “much in the manner of a deliberately-created
test patch,” which happens to be already in the image to be printed by the
user (FF 9). We disagree that the area of solid toner density in Henderson
meets the limitation of “setting a predetermined area for a test print,” for
three reasons. First, we regard Henderson’s description of the area of solid
toner density as being “much in the manner of a deliberately-created test
patch” as an admission that the area is NOT a deliberately created test print,
but simply a high density area of an image the user wishes to print.
Henderson admits that not all images are even suitable for testing, if they do
not contain an area of the appropriate toner density (FF 12). Second, if the
operator in Henderson had actually set a predetermined area of the image as
the test print area, there would be no need for a plurality of densitometers,
because the operator would know exactly where the predetermined area was,
and could use a single densitometer, positioned such that the solid toner
density area would pass directly over it. Third, Henderson explicitly states
that one advantage of his invention is that it does not rely on placing test
patches in specific non-image areas, or on cover sheets (FF 10). Because we
find that neither reference teaches setting a predetermined area for a test
print, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 11 under 35
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013