Appeal No. 2001-2106
Application No. 08/856,183
We disagree with the Examiner that the listing of HTML, PDF
and Postscript download formats is an indication of compatibility
of systems using such formats with Java. There is, in fact,
nothing in JLS that directs us to conclude that the systems using
such formats are compatible with Java, nor any disclosure related
to Java being implemented with existing non-Java applications.
In our view, the Examiner’s conclusion that Bertram’s printer may
be used with Java format because HTML, PDF and Postscript
download formats correspond both to the languages that are
compatible with the printer of Bertram and existing Java systems,
is unsupported by the prior art. As discussed above, Bertram
does not recognize the benefits of using Java language in a
printer driver and implements the conventional method of sending
the rasterized and bit mapped images to a printer using the
memory and processing resources of the host. On the other hand,
JLS makes no reference to compatibility of Java language with
systems that recognize HTML, PDF and Postscript formats.
In view of our analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to claim 1 because the necessary teachings and
suggestions to arrive at the claimed printer driver that receives
“a printer request as a series of method invocations using
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007