Appeal No. 2003-0063
Application No. 09/201,919
17-19 of the Brief, Appellants’ arguments focus on the contention
that, unlike the present claimed invention, there is no disclosure
in Beer of the processing of a stored data structure and data
definitions which are used to create a data message which is sent
to a printer control device.
After reviewing the Beer reference in light of the arguments
of record, we are in general agreement with Appellants’ position as
expressed in the Brief. We find no disclosure in Beer of any
processing of stored data definitions or data structure to develop
a print data message, let alone the particular relationship among
the data structure, data definitions, data message and print images
set forth in independent claims 1, 2, 7, and 8. Although the
Examiner suggests the inherency of providing data definitions to
“automatically produce consistent and accurate data according to
USPS specifications“ (Answer, page 7), we find no evidence on the
record to support such an assertion. To establish inherency,
evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is
necessarily present in the thing described in the reference and
would be recognized as such by persons of ordinary skill. In re
Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir.
1999) citing Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264,
1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “Inherency, however,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007