Appeal No. 2001-1123
Application No. 08/990,759
communication is used when the connectionless mode of communication is not suitable for a
detected condition of the copier (column 8, line 58 through column 9, line 20). Appellants have not
challenged the examiner’s finding (answer, pages 3 and 4) that a communications interface and a
processor connected thereto are disclosed by Motoyama. Appellants’ arguments (brief, pages 4 and
5) that Motoyama is concerned with reducing overhead and network interactions and is event driven
are without merit since the first alternative mode of communication (i.e., connectionless) of claim 1
reads directly on the teachings of Motoyama. A finding of anticipation can be made by reading one
of the claimed alternatives on the teachings of the applied reference. Stated differently, the
examiner is not required to read the second alternative mode of communication (i.e., connection
oriented protocol) of claim 1 on the teachings of Motoyama. Thus, the anticipation rejection of
claim 1 is sustained. The anticipation rejection of claims 3 and 4 is sustained because appellants
have chosen (brief, page 5) to let these claims stand or fall with claim 1.
For all of the reasons expressed supra for claims 1, 3 and 4, the anticipation rejection of
claims 8, 10 through 121, 15, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29 and 32 is sustained.
The obviousness rejection of claim 2 is sustained because appellants have not presented any
patentability arguments for this claim (brief, page 10).
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 5 is sustained because we agree with the
examiner’s finding (answer, pages 6 and 7) that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
1 Motoyama refers to the claimed “single packet” as a “single unit” (column 4, lines 61
through 66).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007