Appeal No. 96-3950
Application No. 08/131,056
We further note that Appellants argue that In re
Donaldson Co. Inc., 16 F. 3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848
(Fed. Cir. 1994) requires that the "means for" language
occurring in the claims, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112,
sixth paragraph, must be interpreted as covering the
structure, material or acts set forth in the specification and
equivalents thereof. However, while Appellants have pointed
to corresponding structure within their specification for the
means statements in the claims, from our earlier discussion we
are not persuaded that the structure disclosed by Dennis would
not be considered equivalent.
With respect to claims 2-6, Appellants have argued at
page 5 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner has improperly
addressed only claim 1 in the rejection. While Appellants are
correct to the extent that the Examiner has treated claim 1 as
an exemplary claim, it is our view that the Examiner's
analysis in the Answer establishes a prima facie case of
anticipation with regard to claims 2-4 and 6 as well. We
agree with the Examiner that in the "option 1" mode of Dennis
the host produces compressed data as recited in claim 2, the
rasterization is performed solely in the host computer as
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007