Appeal No. 97-2710
Application No. 08/402,080
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect the fax
in WinFax to an external telephone line, and to connect the
computer and printer connected to WinFax to an external data
communications line to receive print jobs. After all, it is
well known in the art that an E-mail message sent to the
WinFax computer will be printed by the printer. The
examiner’s conclusion (paper number 5, page 3) that in a
certain mode “incoming faxes are necessarily stored in a job
memory” is agreed to by appellants (Brief, page 10). We do
not, however, agree with any of the examiner’s conclusions
(paper number 5, page 4) concerning the claimed controllers,
particularly the third controller. Windows and WinFax have a
controller or controllers, but no evidence in the record
supports the examiner’s conclusion (paper number 5, pages 3
and 4) that a “third controller” controls WinFax when “the fax
modem has no access to the printer.” In view of the lack of
such evidence, we agree with the appellants (Brief, pages 11
and 12) that the obviousness rejection must be reversed
because WinFax neither teaches nor would have suggested the
specifically claimed functions performed by the third
controller.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007