Appeal No. 2000-1398
Application No. 07/842,082
OPINION
Based on the grouping of claims, at page 4 of the principal brief, all claims will
stand or fall together.
The examiner takes the position that Kawamura teaches, in Figure 16, a
receiving means 301 for receiving image data, discriminating a certain type of that data
in discriminator 307, a selector for selecting between image processes and a recording
means 309. With regard to the claimed plurality of ports, the examiner contends that it
was well known that a port is an intermediate connection between the recorder and the
means for supplying the image data so that the limitation is “inferred” in the reference.
With regard to the plurality of printing means for accommodating images of various
resolutions, the examiner contends that Kawamura teaches plural output devices 200
and 201 for printing images of different density values, i.e., image quality, referring to
Figure 8 of the reference. The examiner further points out that Kawamura already
provides a selector for selecting between circuits 302 and 303 so it would have been
obvious to the artisan to modify the embodiment of Figure 8 by placing a selector
between image data output device 100 and the image output devices 200, 201 for the
purpose of selecting either one of the recording means 200, 201 shown in Figure 16.
The issue, as appellant views it, is whether Kawamura examines the resolution
of an image which has been received. It is appellant’s view that Kawamura’s mention
of “density” has been misinterpreted by the examiner as relating to resolution when, in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007