Appeal No. 2003-0237
Application No. 09/157,895
In response to the Wu declaration, the examiner argues that
Shaw’s disclosure does not include the word “binary” (answer,
page 8). The examiner, however, has not provided evidence that
the interpretation of the Shaw disclosure by Wu, who is a
co-inventor of the Shaw system, is incorrect.
The examiner argues (answer, page 3) that Shaw discloses
a text based minidriver (203 in fig. 2) containing a
text based characterization of the output device
(col. 4, lines 1-4, 38-40, 50-51, 60-64, and note:
printer characterization data includes device data and
font data, and the type of device characterization data
indicates the type of printer which can handle the type
of text data, which is described in col. 7, lines 48-51
and 54-60), the text based characterization containing
an implementation of device specific device driver
functions invoked by the graphic device interface, the
text based minidriver including means for outputting
the text based characterization (col. 4, lines 2-4
and 13-16 and 38-42).
The examiner further argues (answer, page 10):
With respect to the broad limitation of: “a minidriver
having a text-based characterization of the output
device”, Shaw clearly discloses that each minidriver
have a characterization of the output device (col. 4,
lines 1-4). The references, which is made to printer
characterization data as a specific example of device
characterization data (col. 4, lines 45-47), includes
font data (i.e., type of character of text data,
col. 4, lines 50-51 and 60-64). The type of device
characterization data indicates the type of printer,
which can handle the type of text data (col. 7,
lines 46-51). The handle of the minidriver data
contains a reference, including text data, to the
generic printer characterization data (col. 7,
lines 54-60). Therefore, the minidriver of Shaw
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007