Appeal No. 1997-3062
Application No. 08/207,370
address the combination of references, as applied by the
examiner. Clearly, if Mese disclosed the specific printer
claimed to be employed in exactly the same manner as set forth
in the instant claims, the examiner would have made a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on anticipation.
Instead, the rejection is under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
obviousness.
With regard to the Fujii reference, this reference was
applied by the examiner in order to show the specifics of a
printer such as a fixing device, an image forming means, etc.
Appellant never argues that the printing mechanism itself in
appellant’s invention is anything but conventional and, in
fact, does not argue that Fujii is deficient in such a
showing. Appellant’s only argument regarding Fujii [brief,
page 11] is that Fujii does not show the recording of an image
in an apparatus which includes recognizing means for
recognizing a start of operation of a computer and means for
setting the printer in a state capable of producing a printing
operation. The examiner recognized such a deficiency in Fujii
and relied on Mese and Nakanishi for such teachings.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007