Appeal No. 2002-1710 Page 10
Application No. 09/023,441
and improvements to its printer, and Kashiwazaki discloses that downloading an
operating system to a printer allows the printer to operate with an otherwise
incompatible printer language, without adding a new circuit to the printer, we are
persuaded that the references would have suggested downloading a compatible
operating system to the printer. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 and of
claims 4, 5, and 7-9, which fall therewith.
"Because of their dependency from independent claim 1, [the] [a]ppellants submit
that claims 6 and 10-11 are also in condition for allowance." (Appeal Br. at 17.) In
short, they rely on their arguments regarding claim 1. Having been unpersuaded by
those arguments, we affirm the rejections of claim 6, 10, and 11.
B. CLAIMS 2 AND 3
Admitting that "Kashiwazaki et al. fails to teach overwriting . . . the data in a
memory of the printer from the host computer," (Examiner's Answer, § 11, ¶ 2), the
examiner assets, "Brown, III et al. . . . teach[es] that it is well known in the art to
overwrite or erase data in the memory of the printer (e.g.[,] abstract and col. 2, lines 3-
16). . . ." (Id., § 13.) He concludes, "it would have been obvious . . . to provide the
printing system as taught by the combination of Sasaki and Kashiwazaki et al. with the
means to overwrite, erase and replace data as taught by Brown, III et al. because of the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007