Appeal No. 1999-0006
Application No. 08/470,970
In response, Appellant’s arguments, aside from a general
assertion at page 12 of the Brief, do not attack the
combinability of Davidson and DeHart but, rather, focus on the
alleged lack of disclosure in Davidson of key features of the
appealed claims. Appellant initially contends (Brief, page
11) that the Examiner has misinterpreted the disclosure of
Davidson as providing a description of the claimed feature of
storing “print job information” in a localized print queue, a
feature which is present in all of the independent claims. In
making this assertion, Appellant refers to a specific
definition of the terminology “printer job information”
appearing at page 4, lines 11-23 of the specification, which
draws a distinction with actual print job data.
After careful review of the Davidson reference in light
of the arguments of record, we are in agreement with
Appellant’s position as stated in the Briefs. While the
Examiner is correct that claims are to be given their broadest
possible interpretation, any such interpretation must be
consistent with the specification. In the present factual
situation, Appellant’s specification (page 4, lines 11-23;
page 16, lines
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007