Appeal No. 1997-3062
Application No. 08/207,370
While the cited references may not explicitly teach
connection of a peripheral to a printer warm-up recognizing
apparatus, it was explained, supra, why it would have been
obvious to employ a printer as the controlled object in Mese,
placing that controlled object, or printer, in a ready state
upon detection of the approach of a user. Clearly, the
placement of a printer in a “ready state” implies that the
printer will be warmed up.
Appellant’s “arguments” at pages 11-13 of the brief,
citing claims 8, 10, 19, 23, 24, 2, 3, 11, 12, 7 and 20 are
merely general statements about the references not teaching
the invention and that there is “no basis” to combine the
references. However, since these “arguments” have no
substance, they are not regarded as arguments at all.
Appellant has failed to particularly point out how and why the
instant claims specifically differ from the applied
references, pointing to exact claim language on which
appellant relies. Accordingly, these claims will fall with
the claims treated supra.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007