Appeal No. 95-3405
Application 08/077,505
accessed and modified.
The problem with the appellant’s argument is threefold.
First, the backup memory of Nelson as found by the examiner is
neither a ROM nor an EEPROM, but the disk drive memory unit 114.
Secondly, the appellant’s backup memory is not RAM unit 32 but
backup memory unit 33. Third, the structure of the appellant’s
backup memory unit 33 is not necessarily a RAM, based on written
described in the specification.
As is illustrated in the appellant’s Figure 1, the structure
of backup memory unit 33 is not specified. In the specification,
it is described that "[t]he memory unit 33 may be electrically
backed up by a battery or may be a non-volatile memory into which
data can electrically be written" (spec. at 4, lines 14-16).
Thus, according to the appellant’s own specification, backup
memory unit 33 can take on many different structures so long as
the information stored therein is not lost when the printer is
turned off. Consequently, the scope of the appellant’s backup
memory means is quite broad and literally covers Nelson’s disk
drive unit 114. For this reasons, the appellant’s non-equiv-
alence argument is misplaced and without merit.
At oral hearing, appellant’s counsel pointed out that even
assuming that in Nelson the character set definitions downloaded
from the host computer constitute an emulation program inputted
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007