Appeal No. 95-3405
Application 08/077,505
to the printer through downloading, the inputted emulation
program is not additional to a preselected emulation program
already stored in a second storage means within the printer.
It is noted that each of the independent claims recites a second
storage means for storing a preselected emulation program and
requires that the preselected emulation program and the inputted
emulation program are selectively used. We agree with the
appellant that this feature appears not to be disclosed by Nelson
and the examiner has not addressed what constitutes this pre-
selected emulation program in a second storage means with respect
to which the inputted emulation program is additional. Evident-
ly, as is argued by the appellant’s counsel at the oral hearing,
there is only one emulation in Nelson, which converts from codes
for a line printer to codes for an all points addressable
nonimpact printer. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 10-12 as being anticipated by Nelson.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 10-12 also stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson. However, the
examiner provided no explanation beyond those supporting the
anticipation rejection of the same claims over Nelson. Since no
reason has been set forth by the examiner as to why it would have
been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have a
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007