Appeal No. 96-2074
Application 08/129,425
This was restated in a somewhat different manner at the top of
page 5 of the opinion where we indicated that the body of
claim 31 on appeal did not recite in the memory means and data
processor means clauses that both are contained within or on
the “font cartridge” in the preamble. We see no need to
review and assess the case law relied upon by appellant in the
request for rehearing since, to simplify matters, we simply
assume for the sake of argument that appellant is correct that
we did error in some manner according to current case law that
the “font cartridge” language in the preamble gives life and
meaning to the claim because it defines the memory means and
the data processor of the body of the claim within a font
cartridge. The bottom line of appellant’s urging is that this
is the sole basis for us to therefore now reverse the
examiner’s rejection of claim 31 as being obvious over Taaffe
in lieu of appellant’s admitted prior art. We see no error in
our ultimate conclusion of the obviousness of claim 31 within
35 U.S.C. § 103.
The reasoning set forth at pages 7 and 8 of our original
opinion indicates why we concluded the proprietary of the
examiner’s view rejecting claim 31 within 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007