Appeal No. 95-3405
Application 08/077,505
the disk drive.
The claims are not so specific as to be limited to an
emulation of one printer by another printer of the same general
type, e.g., both being all points addressable nonimpact printers,
or both being line printers. Nelson’s conversion of control
signals for line printers into control signals for all points
addressable nonimpact printers is sufficient to meet the claimed
emulation.
The appellant further argues that the claim features are
written in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
sixth paragraph, and that Nelson lacks any structure which is
equivalent to the structures disclosed in the appellant’s
specification (Br. at 11-13). The argument, however, is not
supported by any specific comparison of structures except in
connection with the backup storage means. Accordingly, we need
to examine equivalence only with respect to that means.
The appellant argues (Br. at 13):
For example, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not have recognized the interchangeability of RAM
32 and back-up memory 33 for backing up the RAM so as
not to erase a stored emulation program when the
printer is turned off with a ROM or EEPROM, as these
"read only" devices are difficult to replace and
require more time to access, whereas a RAM is easily
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007