Appeal No. 95-3888
Application No. 08/l05,244
We find that the examiner had no reasonable basis for
challenging the sufficiency of the disclosure and,
accordingly, we will not sustain this rejection. Clearly,
from the instant disclosure, the blank boxes of the drawing
constitute conventional microprocessors, printing mechanisms
and drivers. The examiner contends that the printer must be
something more than conventional because the output of
conventional printers is the printing on a medium. Therefore,
concludes the examiner, it was not conventional for a printing
mechanism to provide control signals as disclosed and claimed.
We disagree.
Conventional printing mechanisms include microprocessors
which, of course, output control signals. More importantly,
however, the control signals output by the printing mechanism
here are simply signals for choosing the correct driver based
on the voltage level needed. It is our view that it is
unreasonable for the examiner to hold that skilled artisans
would not have been able to cause a control signal from a
microprocessor in a printing mechanism to be generated so as
to cause the selection of a particular driver based on a
required voltage level.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007