Appeal No. 1997-3062
Application No. 08/207,370
“controlled object,” appellant’s argument that Mese fails to
suggest a computer/printer combination is not found
persuasive.
At page 8 of the brief, appellant sets forth three
additional arguments, viz., that the cited references do not
teach or suggest a power-up wait-state mode for a printer
system operatively connected to a computer, for bringing the
printer into a ready state capable of a printing operation
when: 1. A computer peripheral has been manipulated; 2. A
sensor detects an approach of a user to the computer; and 3.
By controlling the scheduled use of the printer by a
registered user.
We disagree. Clearly, Mese is concerned with setting the
controlled object in either a power-saving state or a non-
power saving state, depending on whether a user has approached
the apparatus, the apparatus being, for example, a PC. When a
user approaches the computer, the controlled object is placed
in a non-power saving state, i.e., a ready state. When that
controlled object is a printer, which is an obvious variation
of the generic “controlled object,” for reasons discussed
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007