Appeal No. 1998-3410
Application No. 08/444,062
and 6).” (See answer at page 7.) We disagree with the examiner’s conclusion and broad
sweeping citations to the same portion of the specification without specifically identifying
the support or reasoning for the conclusion.
In response to appellants' arguments, the examiner relies upon column 6, lines 4-7
where Paradise states that “fax jobs may be released individually in which case the
released fax jobs are individually inserted into the output queue 310 ahead of the next print
or copy job scheduled to be printed.” The examiner maintains that “once the fax jobs are
performed the queue management system return[s] to print the copy and print jobs . . .
[t]hereby changing the mode of the system between fax jobs and copy/print jobs.” (See
answer at page 8.) The examiner relies upon the statement in Paradise that “[p]rint, copy,
and fax jobs 300, 303, 305 may be moved into output queue 310 at any time.” Appellants
argue that nowhere does Paradise teach that the system automatically switches from the
second mode to the first mode in response to completion of a printing of fax job or
completion of a second mode print. (See reply
brief at page 1.) We agree with appellants. Appellants argue that the examiner is
equating the changing of the order of printing with a change in the modes. (See reply brief
at page 2.) We agree with appellants that this appears to be the examiner’s position.
Further, we agree with appellants that the changing of the order of prints is not the same as
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007