Appeal No. 2001-0813 Page 5
Application No. 08/825,994
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually made
by appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived by appellants [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to representative, independent claim 1, the examiner’s rejection is
set forth on pages 3-5 of the examiner’s answer. The rejection essentially finds that
Watanabe either explicitly teaches or inherently teaches all the features of claim 1
except for the control device being a microprocessor-based controller and that the
control device is separate from the central controller. The examiner takes “Official
Notice” that microprocessor-based controllers were well known in the art. The examiner
also finds that Watanabe teaches that memory 6 can incorporate its own (separate)
controller. The examiner also notes that it would have been obvious to provide a
separate control device in order to lighten the burden on the main computer. With
respect to representative, independent claim 19, the examiner additionally finds that
Watanabe teaches the additionally claimed expert system.
With respect to claims 1 and 19, appellants argue that Watanabe lacks any
teaching of the features of claims 1 and 19 directed to providing the information support
system with exclusive control over the copier’s display. Appellants argue that the
examiner’s finding that such a control device is inherent is erroneous because controller
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007