Appeal No. 2003-1883
Application No. 08/953,488 Page 4
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's
answer. Upon consideration of the record before us, we affirm-
in-part. We begin with the rejection of claims 2, 18, 19, and 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Mandel. We
turn first to claim 27, the only independent claim before us on
appeal.
To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose
every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The examiner's position is set forth on pages 4 and 5 of the
answer.
Appellants assert (brief, page 3) that controller 100 of
Mandel controls a sheet distribution system 16, which controls
the assignment of the sheets to the bins after printing.
Appellants add (brief, page 4) that the controller can
interrogate the bin sensors, but argue that the bin distribution
means is not related to data before the data enters the printer
14. It is further argued (brief, page 7) that element 100 of
Mandel does not equate to the structure of "bin designating means
for designating a bin for each of the terminal apparatus when the
image data is supplied from a terminal apparatus to the image
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007