Appeal No. 2002-1710 Page 7
Application No. 09/023,441
459, 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir.
1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Here, Sasaki "provides a printing system as schematically shown in FIG. 1.
This printing system includes a printing device . . . and a data processing device which
is connected to the printing device through a bidirectional interface. . . ." Col. 2, ll. 61-
67. For its part, the "printing device . . . has at least one language interpreter for
interpreting print data for performing a printing operation," id. at ll. 63-65, which is what
the appellants term an "operating system" for a printer. Therefore, we agree with the
examiner's finding that Sasaki stores an operating system in a printer.
"Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references." In re
Merck, 800 F.2d, 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)). "'Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.'" Cable Elec. Prods., Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1025, 226 USPQ
881, 886-87 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quoting Keller, 642 F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ at 881).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007