Appeal No. 2002-1832
Application No. 09/318,980 Page 8
find no disclosure that NEB 2 has a monitor. In addition, we
note that Emerson discloses that NEB 2 is directly connected to
LAN 6 via LAN interface 101 (col. 8, line 28 and 29). Although
the examiner is correct that the system includes modem 58,
(figure 2) we find no disclosure in Emerson, and none has been
pointed to by the examiner, that would teach or suggest
connecting NEB 2 to the modem for transferring stored system
information to a host computer on a request of the host computer,
as required by claim 1. Moreover, although Emerson discloses
plural PCS having monitors, Emerson is directed to control of the
printer using the NEB to provide the functionality of a server
PC, and does not disclose communication of system information
from a network PC to the administrator's PC, upon request from
the administrator's PC.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of anticipation of claim 1.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 5, and 6,
which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 3, 4, and 7-16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Emerson in view of
Bizzarri. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007