Appeal No. 1998-3410
Application No. 08/444,062
changing the mode of operation. Appellants argue that the triggering event for a change
from the hold fax mode of Paradise to the released fax mode is because the holding
queue becomes filled, not because there has been a completion of the printing of a
print/copy job as required by the language of claim 1. (See brief at page 9 and reply brief
at page 2.) Appellants argue that Paradise does not disclose the triggering events for
changes in modes of operation. (See brief at page 9.) We agree with appellants that
Paradise is not detailed as to the interaction of the modes. (See brief at page 9 and 10.)
Since Paradise does not disclose, either expressly or inherently, the operation of the
interaction of the modes to be automatic switching as recited in the language of claim 1,
we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection based upon anticipation. Similarly,
independent claims 2 and 3 along with dependent claims 4-6 are not taught by Paradise
alone.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. §
102 is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007