Appeal No. 96-2074
Application 08/129,425
light of Taaffe’s teachings and appellant’s admitted prior
art. This assessment made specific reference to pertinent
portions of Taaffe’s background of the invention as well as
other locations in this reference. Most of our discussion
focused upon the obviousness of placing the compressed font
memory data within a memory cartridge in accordance with the
prior art approach recognized by appellant in the portions of
appellant’s specification the examiner referenced and relied
upon in the statement of the rejection.
Though not clearly expressed at this portion of our
opinion, it clearly would have been obvious to have
modularized, in a form of one of the prior art cartridges, the
data processor as well in the same cartridge, which itself was
well known in the art anyway according to appellant’s
assessment of the prior art and the teachings in Taaffe as
well. Taaffe’s device has an image archive/processor 17 in
Fig. 1a as well as an image-graphic processor 43 in Fig. 1b.
To increase modularity and ease of changing fonts or font
groups quickly, it would have been obvious to the artisan to
have placed the processor as well within the same cartridge
where the compressed font data was located in the form of a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007