Appeal No. 95-3351
Application No. 07/735,356
As to the remaining elements of Claims 9, 20, 22, and 23,
the only distinction pressed by Appellants is that the output
means, analysis means, and means for calculating in Filion
relate to a photocopier rather than a printing system as
claimed. Even if the claims as interpreted under the sixth
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 did not literally cover a
photocopier in an anticipation sense, we find that it would
have been obvious to apply Filion’s teachings to a printing
system as disclosed. Filion expressly invites this
application. Column 1, lines 7-11; column 3, lines 7-12.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of Claims 9, 20, 22, and
23.
Claims 10-13, 16-19, 24-29, and 36-41
The remaining claims, Claims 10-13, 16-19, 24-29, and 36-
41, recite an apparatus or method that makes calculations
based on print job priority, stored material amount, or
receiving bin capacity. The examiner states that these
features, though not taught by Filion, are well known in the
art. Examiner’s Answer at page 3, line 16, through page 4,
line 3. Appellants dispute that such features are well known.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007