Appeal No. 2002-1710 Page 15
Application No. 09/023,441
(e.g., default value) or it may elect to reject and ignore the print job (possibly after
issuing a warning message)." Col. 34, ll. 57-62. Neither using an alternative algorithm
nor rejecting a print job involves requesting from a host computer an operating system
to be downloaded.
The examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of Kashiwazaki
cures the aforementioned deficiency of Sasaki and Bringmann. Absent a teaching or
suggestion that the printer request from the host computer the operating system to be
downloaded, we are unpersuaded of a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we
reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 12.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejections of claims 1 and 4-11 under § 103(a) are affirmed.
The rejections of claim 2, 3, and 12 under § 103(a), however, are reversed.
"Any arguments or authorities not included in the brief will be refused
consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. . . ." 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.192(a). Accordingly, our affirmance is based only on the arguments made in the
briefs. Any arguments or authorities not included therein are neither before us nor at
issue but are considered waived. Cf. In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007