Appeal No. 2001-2579 Page 14
Application No. 08/885,996
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would . . . have suggested the
claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781,
783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, although Sasaki's PC sends "an inquiry signal . . . to the laser printer LP,
to ask the printer LP to send back the interpreter-identification data which represent the
types of the language interpreters available on the printer LP," col. 7, ll. 20-23, the
examiner fails to show that the signal constitutes the claimed "check data."
Furthermore, although the reference's "first RAM 16 has a suitable storage capacity for
storing the print data and other data received from the personal computer PC," col. 5,
ll. 48-50, the examiner fails to show that the inquiry signal is stored therein. He further
fails to allege, let alone show, that the addition of Kageyama, Gyllenskog, or AAPA
cures the aforementioned deficiency of Sasaki.
Second, admitting that "Sasaki does not mention . . . comparing a check data,
which is send to printer, with a checked data which is transmitted to a host from the
printer," (Examiner's Answer at 5), the examiner concludes, "Sasaki can compare a
check data from a host and a checked data from printer, because the process of data
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007