Appeal No. 2000-2067
Application No. 08/859,278
(Emphasis added). In understanding these claim limitations, we
identify the separate hardware components of an independent
central processing unit and an independent image processor.
Figure 6 clearly shows the separate hardware of an image
processor (603) and a CPU (604), each with separate functions and
connections to various components of the image processing system
(601). Figure 7 further illustrates the independence and
functionality of the image processor (701 - which is the same
component as 603). We find that Appellants’ claim calls for two
separate processors. We cannot agree that a “single CPU” with
software that makes the CPU function in two processing modes is
the same as two distinct processors.
Upon careful review of Cohen-Skalli, we find that Cohen-
Skalli discloses “[a] processing and computing unit 13 connected
to a control panel 18 has the function of controlling the storage
unit 12, the routing unit 14 and the series interfaces 19.1,
19.2, 19.N.” See column 3, line 68 to column 4, line 4 and
Figures 1 and 2 of Cohen-Skalli. Cohen-Skalli further discloses
that “the routing unit 14 transmits the data either solely to the
storage unit 12 for printing or also to the other series ports
(19.1, 19.2, 19.3, 19.N) concerned for data-processing in one or
a number of external microcomputers (7.1, 7.2, 7.N).” See column
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007