Appeal No. 1999-0163
Application No. 08/745,698
suggested by the applied prior art, it is our opinion that the
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to independent claims 4 and 7. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
independent claims 4 and 7, nor of claims 6 and 8 dependent
thereon, based on the proposed combination of Sloan, Takaaki,
and Hewlett-Packard.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s separate
obviousness rejection of claims 4 and 6-8 based on the
combination of Takaaki and Hewlett-Packard, we do not sustain
this rejection as well. As the basis for this rejection, the
Examiner, instead of relying on the language selection
features of Sloan, relies on Takaaki’s teachings of language
selection in a tape printer environment. The Examiner,
however, continues to rely on Hewlett-Packard as disclosing an
automatic language selection feature provided at initial
power-up, a feature which, from our earlier discussion, we
found lacking in the disclosure of the reference.
In conclusion, we have not sustained either of the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of the claims on appeal.
Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 4 and
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007