Appeal No. 2003-1883
Application No. 08/953,488 Page 5
forming apparatus," because element 100 designates bins after
the printing has been done. Appellants rely upon the disclosure
in Mandel (col. 14, lines 58-60) that the mailbox controller
controls a sheet distribution system, such as 16. Appellants
further assert (brief, page 8) that the language "bin designating
means for designating a bin for each of the terminal apparatuses
when the image data is supplied from a terminal apparatus to the
image forming apparatus" complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
paragraph, and that assuming that control 100 of Mandel is a bin
designating means, "it does not nor is it possible for it to
perform the function set forth in claim 27 for the ‘bin
designating means’."
From our review of Mandel, we find that Mandel discloses
(col. 10, lines 23-27) that user interaction and control with,
for, and from the printing and mailboxing apparatus and its
operations can be on and from the terminals or PCS of individual
networked users. Mandel further discloses (col. 11, line 67
through col. 12, line 3) that as shown in figure 6, the shared
user electronic printer is connected to a prior art, conventional
interoffice system with various remote user workstations 15.
Moreover, Mandel discloses (col. 29, lines 35-39) that a shared
user printer output job can be generated and sent to a mailbox
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007