Appeal No. 2001-0865
Application 08/998,781
rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 13, 16, 17, and 20 is
sustained.
Claims 2, 14, and 15
Appellant argues that the examiner erred in the finding that
claim 2 is taught by Zimmerman (Br12-13; RBr19-22). Although
this argument is right at the edge of failing to address why the
limitation in claim 2 is patentable, we address it.
We find that the combination of Zimmerman and Saruwatari do
not teach a "printer preparation period, said printer preparation
period corresponding to a period of time for preparing said
printer to form an image on the recordable medium." The time
that elapses until the buffer threshold is reached is not used to
prepare the printer for recording. Accordingly, the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness as to
claim 2. The rejection of claims 2, 14, and 15 is reversed.
Claims 9-12
The examiner finds that Zimmerman does not mention the
limitations of claim 9, but concludes that it would "have been
obvious that the preparation time is to be transmitted first
before data is transmitted because the printer has to know the
time first before it can start the print engine" (EA6).
Appellant argues that the examiner erred as to the rejection
of claim 9 because the printer does not need to know the
- 12 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007