Appeal No. 2001-0596
Application 08/824,344
appellant argues that there are no unknown specific error types
in Kageyama. Appellant also argues that there is no error
determined in Gase because Gase simply replaces a working printer
driver with a newer version of the driver [brief, pages 5-14].
The examiner responds that the apparatus of Kageyama stops the
printing operation when the printer fails to respond to the
response request signal. The examiner also notes that Gase
teaches the replacement of an initial printer driver with a
second printer driver due to an abnormal operational state of the
initial driver [answer, pages 9-13]. Appellant responds that
there is no provision in Kageyama corresponding to an abnormal
operational state of an initially set printer driver, and Gase
does not replace an initially set printer driver in response to
an abnormal condition. Appellant also responds that the commands
generated in Kageyama do not correspond to the errors detected in
the claimed invention [reply brief].
We agree with the position argued by appellant. In our
view, the examiner has not properly interpreted an error in view
of the language of the claim. More particularly, representative
claim 1 specifically defines an error “as occurring when said
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007