Appeal No. 2002-1885 Page 10
Application No. 08/966,453
conversion of element information into raster information, it is
the image processor 25 that converts the series of element
information into raster information. Thus, we find no teaching
or suggestion in Suzuki that the CPU can perform the operations
of the image processor 25. Nor do we find any admission by
appellant on page 15 of the brief, as advanced by the examiner,
that CPU 22 can perform the conversion process. What appellant
states (on page 15 of the brief) is that if the conversion was
performed by CPU 22, the CPU 22 and bus 20 would be busy for long
periods of time, and that Suzuki provides the image processor 25
in order to free the CPU 22 and the bus 20 from being paralyzed
by the element-to-raster conversion. Appellant goes on to state
(brief, page 16) that if the modification were made, the
embodiment of figure 16 of Suzuki would be rendered inoperative.
In sum, because Suzuki relies upon the image processor 25 to
convert the element information into raster information, and does
not teach or suggest that the CPU 22 can be used instead to
convert the element information into raster information, we agree
with appellant (brief, page 16) that:
If when combined, the references “would produce a
seemingly inoperative device,” then they teach away
from their combination. In re Sponnoble, 56 C.C.P.A.
823, 405 F.2d 578, 587, 160 U.S.P.Q. 237, 244 (CCPA
1969); see also In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007