Appeal No. 1997-1431
Application No. 08/323,976
35 U.S.C. § 112.
The examiner objects to the recitation in claim 5 that
the printing machine has “a plurality of modes of operation,
each mode operable to effect recurring events.” According to
the examiner, there is only a single mode of operation or the
printer is idle, neither of which satisfies the quoted
language of the claim [answer, page 4]. We fail to understand
why the examiner deems the performing of a printing task that
is to be billed as the only mode of operation. Claim 5
recites a printing machine having a plurality of modes of
operation. The disclosed printing machine operates to perform
several tasks besides simply a printing task that is billed.
There is no basis for the examiner to conclude that there are
not a plurality of operable modes which effect recurring
events.
The examiner then addresses the recitation in claim 5
of weighting factors and concludes that the specification is
silent as to how the weighting scheme is actually applied to
the determination of a bill for a particular print job
[answer, pages 4-5]. We fail to understand what the
examiner’s observation has to do with indefiniteness under 35
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007