Appeal No. 2001-2106
Application No. 08/856,183
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bertram in view of JLS.
Rather than reiterate the viewpoints of the Examiner and
Appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference
to the answer (Paper No. 26, mailed February 13, 2001) for the
Examiner’s reasoning and to the appeal brief (Paper No. 25, filed
December 6, 2000) and the reply brief (Paper No. 27, filed April
13, 2001) for Appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that Appellant states that claims 1
and 2 stand or fall together (brief, page 3). Accordingly, we
will consider the claims as one group and will limit our
consideration to independent claim 1 as the representative claim
of the group.
The Examiner asserts that Bertram teaches the claimed
computer storage medium and code mechanism for causing the
operation of a print rasterization and outputting an image except
for using commands in a JAVA object oriented language syntax
(answer, pages 3 & 4). The Examiner, however, relies on JLS for
disclosing the use of commands in JAVA object oriented language
and concludes that JAVA syntax is compatible with other
applications and may be used in Bertram’s printer in order to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007