Appeal No. 2001-2578
Application No. 08/977,547
failed to establish how the presence of the terms “protocol” and
“Telnet” in the glossary section of Klotzbach suggests that
protocol negotiations over the wires at the physical layer may be
applied to the document delivery at the application layer in
Smith.
Based on our analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness because the
combination of Smith and Klotzbach neither teach nor would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the claimed
communicating to a printer and negotiating the device protocol
options at the application layer connection. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9
and 11-13 over Smith and Klotzbach.
With respect to the rejection of claims 5, 8 and 10, the
Examiner relies on Plakosh for teaching buffers in the printer
server for storing the parameter data and a buffer manager for
scanning the buffer and retrieving the stored parameter data
(answer, page 13). Appellants argue that Plakosh stores the
printer data itself in a spool buffer until the data can be sent
to the printer, which is the basic printer management (brief,
pages 16 & 22) and cannot perform the claimed negotiation
supported by the subnegotiation buffer (brief, pages 17 & 22).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007