Appeal No. 1998-3066
Application No. 08/444,517
It is true that instant independent claim 1 does not explicitly mention anything
about using a page as a job or intermixing the pages of two or more documents.
However, the claim does recite that operation of the print execution unit is controlled
“when each of said logical printers has completed a virtual printing operation for one
page, thus printing actually data for the page.” While, perhaps, not as explicit as the
claim language could be, we hold that this claim language does require an actual
printing of a page as soon as a logical printer completes a virtual printing of that page.
Accordingly, the page that is printed at any given time may be from different documents
dependent on which of the plural logical printers has completed a virtual printing
operation at that time. Thus, there is an intermixing of pages printed from different
documents. In the case of two logical printers vying for the attention of the
single actual printer, after the data from one page of one of the logical printers is
completely actually printed out, the data from a page of the other logical printer is
printed out on the actual printer before a next page of data from the first logical printer
is actually printed out. Therefore, claim 1 does require an intermixing of pages from two
or more documents, as argued by appellants.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007