Appeal No. 2000-0376
Application 08/753,236
type, type of ink used to print the indicia, and toner type
(specification, pp. 5-6). Thus, "printing parameters" must be
interpreted, consistent with the disclosure, broadly enough to
include machine hardware identification parameters as taught by
Dietrich and is not limited to printing process parameters.
Furthermore, it can be appreciated that the machine to which the
machine parameter (e.g., serial number) is known to correspond
broadly indicates printing parameters, such as whether the
machine uses laser printing, dot matrix printing, or thermal
printing (col. 1, lines 38-39). Appellant seems to admit that
Dietrich is printing parameters of the entire machine (Br9).
Appellant's arguments do not demonstrate error. The
description about how the disclosed invention works (Br9-10) is
not persuasive because we do not find those limitations in the
claimed invention. In particular, the limitation of "printing
parameters" is broad enough to read on disclosed hardware
parameters such as the manufacturer of the printer that printed
the indicia and the printer model, which have nothing to do with
the actual printing process. Appellant has not shown that the
claimed "printing parameters" does not read on the serial number
or factory number disclosed in Dietrich. Where later claims
recite limitations having to do with the actual printing process,
such as the printer settings (claim 5) and the type of toner
(claim 14), we conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007