Appeal No. 2001-2579 Page 13
Application No. 08/885,996
to the printer according to the characteristic of the printer's CPU. Therefore, we affirm
the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4-9
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellant in toto, we
address two points of contention therebetween. First, the examiner alleges, "Sasaki
teaches . . . receiving the check data (i.e., inquiry signal) and storing the check data in a
memory (i.e., RAM 16 discussed in col. 5, line 48-50). . . ." (Examiner's Answer at 5.)
The appellant argues, "[t]here has been no prima facie showing that Sasaki's 'inquiry
signal' is data and there has been no showing that the 'inquiry signal' is stored in
Ram 16." (Reply Br. at 13.)
Claim 4 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "(a) transmitting form
values corresponding to data processing forms of said printer to said printer as check
data each time a print request occurs; (b) receiving said check data and storing said
check data in a memory in the printer. . . ."
"In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993)(citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007