Appeal No. 1998-3066
Application No. 08/444,517
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that, in accordance with appellants’ grouping of the claims,
at page 3 of the principal brief, all claims will stand or fall together. Accordingly, we
focus on independent claim 1.
It is the examiner’s position that Boswell discloses the claimed subject matter but
for a printer having a print execution unit and a control unit for controlling operations.
The examiner relies on Mitsuhashi, pointing to Figure 3, items 21, 22 and 25, for a
teaching of a printing unit including a control unit for controlling operations and an
execution unit for executing printing requests. In the examiner’s view, the conclusion of
obviousness of the claimed subject matter is reached by determining that the skilled
artisan would have recognized
the desirability to incorporate the logical printers as
taught by Boswell within the control unit of Mitsuhashi,
in order to allow a single printer to support multiple
emulations (i.e. page description languages) by receiving
data from different sources using different data formats,
thereby reducing the cost of a network printing system
by having a printer(s) capable of printing in different emulations [sic]
modes [answer-page 4].
Appellants’ position is that the instant invention differs from the prior art
in that the claimed invention “uses a page as a unit, while the prior art uses an entire
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007