Appeal No. 2001-0596
Application 08/824,344
printer fails to respond to said response request signal.” Thus,
when the term “said error” is used later in claim 1, it must be
an error that occurred when the printer failed to respond to a
response request signal. We agree with the examiner that
Kageyama does teach that his printer will shut down when the
printer fails to respond to a response request signal or receives
the wrong command when the communication preparation completion
command is expected [column 63, step (i)]. At all other times,
however, Kageyama only shuts down when a command is received
which cannot be classified. Thus, Kageyama also teaches that the
host computer will classify a command received from the printer
in response to a response request signal [id., step (l)].
Although this command forces shutdown if it cannot be classified,
such a command is not an error as defined in claim 1 because the
printer has, in fact, responded with a command and not with a
failure to respond as claimed. The same holds true for step (r)
in the apparatus of Kageyama.
Thus, every “error” in Kageyama, except for the
communication regarding preparation completion, results from a
command which cannot be classified rather than from a failure to
respond as claimed. There is no suggestion that an error
corresponding to an abnormal operational state of the initially
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007