Appeal No. 96-3851
Application No. 08/341,849
computer, within which resides a printer server." Then in
item 14 of the same Declaration, appellant states that "[t]he
Vaughn process may take place in either the server or the
printer." Accordingly, the coding takes place in the printer
server. Thus, Vaughn would seem to anticipate claims 30 and
31. Although the examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 using additional references to show a server, since
anticipation is the epitome of
obviousness (See In re Emert, 124 F.3d 1458, 1462, 44 USPQ2d
1149, 1153 (Fed. Cir. 1997), citing Structural Rubber Prods.
Co.
v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 716, 223 USPQ 1264, 1271
(Fed. Cir. 1984) ("anticipation is the epitome of
obviousness")), we will sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 30 and 31.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 4, 17
through 29, and 32 through 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed and the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 30
and 31 affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007