Appeal No. 2001-2579 Page 10
Application No. 08/885,996
driver in its RAM, the PC uses the print driver "for preparing print data by conversion in
a language that can be interpreted by the . . . the laser printer LP. . . ." Col. 6, ll. 51-53.
Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 and of claim 2, which falls therewith.
Claim 3
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellant in toto, we
address the main point of contention therebetween. The examiner asserts, "[i]t would
have been obvious . . ., in view of Applicant's admitted prior art, to have modified the
printing system of the combination of Sasaki and Kageyama et al. for the data
processing form comprising one of a byte form, a word form, and a long word form, and
if the data processing form comprises the word form (two bytes), then the data
processing form comprises one of a high order type and a low order type. . . ."
(Examiner's Answer at 4.) "[A]dmit[ting] that byte forms, word forms and long word
forms of data processing in a printer are well known," (Reply Br. at 11), the appellant
argues, "the applied art fails to teach confirming a data processing form, wherein said
data processing form comprising one of a byte form, a word form, and a long word
form, and if said data processing form comprises said word form, then said data
processing form comprises one of a high order type and a low order type. . . ." (Id.)
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007