Appeal No. 1999-0482
Application 08/632,331
job tickets. Appellant points to column 7, lines 30 through
32, of Hower.
In response to this argument, the Examiner withdraws from
the position that the Hower queue reads on the Appellant’s
claimed spooler program but then maintains that a spooler
program is inherent in the Hower teaching. On pages 2 and 3
of the reply brief, Appellant argues that the spooler program
is not inherent to the Hower teaching because it is not a
necessary result from the teaching of the Hower reference.
Appellant points out that the Hower reference teaches that a
job ticket is formed and is transmitted to one of the printer
queues. Appellant argues that it is not apparent that there
is a spooler program launched in each queue nor is it
inherent. Appellant argues that the system of the Hower
patent is the conventional arrangement depicted in appellant’s
figure 1 in which all the printer services are carried out
with a centralized printer manager. As such, appellant
submits that the inherency rationale employed in the rejection
is not supported by reference and cannot be applied just to
assert that each queue maintains a spooler program.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007