Appeal No. 2002-1735 Page 5
Application No. 08/903,878
Here, claims 1, 8-10, 17, 18, and 39-41 specify in pertinent part the following
limitations: a printer featuring "a buffer memory possessing a fixed image-data storage
capacity smaller than a quantity of image data representing one frame of the image. .
. ." As argued by the appellants, the specification discloses that "[p]rinting at a constant
speed is made possible merely by providing a FIFO memory 26 that is capable of
storing only a few lines of image data." (Spec. at 31.) Read in light of this disclosure,
one skilled in the art would understand that the limitations limit the image-data storage
capacity of a printer's buffer to be no larger than that required to store a few lines of
image data. Therefore, we reverse the indefiniteness rejection of claims 1, 8-10, 17,
18, and 39-41.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-18 and 39-41
We again address the main point of contention between the examiner and the
appellants. Admitting that "Takayanagi et al. do not explicitly state that the fixed
storage of a printer's buffer memory has a capacity smaller than a quantity of one frame
of the image data," (Examiner's Answer at 3), the examiner alleges, "Hattori teaches
that a fixed storage of a printer's buffer memory has a capacity smaller than a quantity
of one frame of the image data, so that the buffer memory is not emptied when the
image data is transferred to that buffer memory of the printer (col. 1, lines 47-49; col. 3,
lines 6-8 and col. 7, lines 14-20)." (Id. at 3-4.) The appellants "submit that Hattori is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007