Appeal No. 2001-0830
Application No. 08/917,718
OPINION
With regard to independent claim 1, the examiner takes the
position that the claim is anticipated by Kashiwazaki for the
reasons set forth at pages 2-3 of the answer. We have reviewed
the examiner’s reasoning and have studied the various portions of
Kashiwazaki identified by the examiner as disclosing certain
claimed elements and we agree with appellant that Kashiwazaki
does not anticipate the claim for at least the following reasons.
Claim 1 requires the data received from the computer to
include a “header” and a “data” portion and that a determination
is made as to whether data input is print data or environment
setting data based on a header code included in the header
portion.
The examiner points to column 11, lines 50-60, of
Kashiwazaki for a teaching of a “header portion” and to Figure 19
and column 15, lines 4-10, for a teaching of a “data portion.”
The examiner then points to CPU 22 in Figure 2 of Kashiwazaki as
the “determining means” for determining whether the data input is
print data (pointing to column 7, lines 34-37) or environment
setting data (pointing to column 9, lines 37-45) and that this is
based on a header code included in the header portion of the data
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007