Appeal No. 1998-3410
Application No. 08/444,062
at page 5.) We agree with appellants that Paradise does not teach all the elements of the
claimed invention. We do not reach the issue of whether Paradise suggests the claimed
invention or modification thereof since the sole rejection is based upon anticipation.
Appellants state that arguably the third and second modes of Paradise correspond
to the first and second modes of the claimed invention, but Paradise lacks the automatic
mode switching feature of the claimed invention. (See brief at page 7.) We agree with
appellants. Appellants argue that the first mode of Paradise (Automatic Fax Release
Mode) treats print, copy and fax jobs in a first-in-first-out basis which cannot correspond to
either appellants’ first or second modes. We agree with appellants.
The examiner maintains the Paradise teaches the claimed invention and refers
generally to columns 5 and 6 along with figure 11. Further, the examiner states that
“Paradise et al. clearly suggests that once there are fax jobs in the hold queue during
automatic fax release mode, the printing system return[s] to execute any fax job
requests received, otherwise [it] process [sic, processes] any [other] fax jobs requests.”
(See answer at page 6.) We disagree with the examiner’s statement in the rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007