Appeal No. 2001-0596
Application 08/824,344
set printer driver would lead to a failure to respond to a
response request signal. Although the examiner relies on Gase as
teaching replacing the initially set printer driver, the
replacement in Gase is not based on an abnormal operational state
of the initially set driver, but instead, is based on a desire to
update an operational initial driver with a newer version of the
driver. This basis for replacing the initially set printer
driver could never appear in Kageyama as a failure to respond to
the response request signal. Since an error is specifically
defined in claim 1 as noted above, the command to replace the
driver in Gase could never meet the definition of an error as
defined in claim 1. Therefore, an “error” corresponding to an
abnormal operational state of the initially set printer driver
would not be an “error” as defined in claim 1.
Since we find that the examiner has not properly
interpreted an error as defined in claim 1, we also find that the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Therefore, we do not sustain the examiner’s
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007