Appeal No. 96-2074
Application 08/129,425
memory cartridge. Our reasoning at pages 7 and 8 of the
original opinion clearly relies upon the teachings of the need
to minimize processing time as specifically taught in Taaffe.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the artisan to have
further minimized processing time to decompress the compressed
font data by a data processor collocated with the memory
storing the compressed data, particularly to enable the font
data to be decompressed on a line by line basis as well as a
character by character basis more quickly for higher speed
printing operations.
We have granted appellant’s request for rehearing to the
extent that we have reconsidered our decision of May 12, 1998,
but we deny the request with respect to making any changes
therein.
No time for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
DENIED
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007