Appeal No. 96-3950
Application No. 08/131,056
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F. 2d 1540, 1555, 220
USPQ 303, 314 (Fed. Cir. 1983) citing In re Sporman, 363 F. 2d
444, 448, 150 USPQ 449, 452 (CCPA 1966).
We now consider the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Komura and Dennis. At the
outset, we note that we share Appellants' confusion as to the
particular basis for this rejection. Despite the Examiner's
attempt to read the limitations of claim 1 on Komura at page 6
of the Answer, it appears from the analysis on page 5 of the
Answer that the Examiner is using the teachings of Komura to
supplement those of the primary reference to Dennis.
Accordingly, we limit our discussion to this issue. At page 5
of the Answer, the Examiner, in considering a possible
alternative interpretation of Dennis in which buffering may be
found not to be inherent, has offered Komura as supplying a
teaching of buffer memory utilized in a printer. However, in
view of our earlier discussion of Dennis including the
inherent feature of buffering, it is our opinion that the
Examiner has established a prima facie case of anticipation
with respect to claims 1, 2, and 4-6 based on Dennis. A
disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007