Appeal No. 1997-0509
Application 08/314,131
simultaneously and the printer being used simultaneously for
more than one application. Thus, the arguments made by
Appellant are not commensurate with the features claimed in
claim 5.
Furthermore, Appellant argues that the claims should be
interpreted to read on the specific structure disclosed in the
specification, citing In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1194, 29
USPQ 1845, 1849 [brief, pages 13 to 14]. However, Appellant
has not specifically spelled out what particular means in the
claims correspond to the specific disclosed structure, and how
that structure differs from Toyokura's disclosure. Absent
that, we agree with the Examiner's interpretation of the
claims as given by the Examiner's position above.
The dependent claims 6 through 15 are elected to be
grouped with claim 5 [brief, page 8] and not argued
separately. Therefore, we sustain the anticipation rejection
of claims 5 through 15.
Regarding the other independent claim 16, this is a
method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 5 discussed
above. The Examiner, as well as Appellant, have argued claim
16 in the same manner as claim 5. Consequently, we need to
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007