Appeal No. 2003-1883
Application No. 08/953,488 Page 8
supplied from a terminal apparatus to the image forming
apparatus," as recited in claim 27. Accordingly, we agree with
the examiner (answer, page 10) that the bin designating means is
met by Mandel. We are not persuaded by appellants’ assertion
that Mandel does not meet the claim language under the sixth
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. As stated, supra, because the
controller (bin designation apparatus) designates a bin for each
of the terminal apparatuses (user's workstation PC) when the
print information (image data) is sent from the workstation to
the printer (image forming apparatus), we find that Mandel
performs the identical function recited in appellants' claim 27.
In addition, we find that in view of Mandel's disclosure of
controller 100 connected to the printer, as well as to the
display and sheet distribution apparatus, that the structure
disclosed by Mandel for carrying out the disclosed function, is
equivalent to the structure found in appellants' specification
and drawings. Moreover, we are not persuaded by appellants'
assertion (reply brief, page 6) that Mandel does not disclose the
claimed priority setting means for setting priorities for the
bins to which a record sheet may be discharged, because it is
unknown whether priorities are set for preselected bins in
Mandel. In addition to the portion of Mandel recited, supra,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007