Appeal No. 1997-3062
Application No. 08/207,370
specifically identify the controlled object as a printer, it
would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that the
controlled object may be a printer since Mese indicates that
the device relates to information processing apparatus of a
“wide variety of application fields of a pen-base personal
computer...” [column 1, lines 11-20]. A printer clearly falls
within such information processing apparatus. For good
measure, the examiner
identifies Nakanishi as disclosing a power saving printer
which may be the type of controlled object indicated by Mese.
We agree.
First, appellant argues [brief, page 7] that the claimed
invention is directed to a computer/printer combination which
includes “features that reduce the waiting time for receipt of
a printing output of the computer.” This argument is not
persuasive since we find nothing in the claims on appeal
directed to the reduction of such wait time and appellant has
pointed to no such language in the claims.
Next, appellant argues that while Mese discloses a
computer, there “is no disclosure and no suggestion of a
computer/printer combination, or the features permitting the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007