Appeal No. 2003-1883
Application No. 08/953,488 Page 14
upon by the examiner, the measurement is not by time period but
by the number of jobs or printed sheets delivered to the same bin
in the selected time interval, whereas in claim 21 it is the time
itself which is being used. We agree. From our review of
Salgado, we find (col. 19, lines 38-48) that Salgado discloses a
system for reassigning one or more print receiving bins based
upon frequency of use. In one approach, the threshold is based
on either the number of jobs delivered to the user's bin(s)
within a selected time interval or the number of sheets delivered
to the same bin(s) in the same selected time interval. Because
Salgado bases bin redistribution decisions on the number of jobs
or sheets sent to the bin during a time interval, we find that
Salgado does not suggest “[t]he image forming apparatus of claim
27, wherein the bin designating means designates a bin only for a
predetermined period of time and storing means for canceling
information stored in the storing means when the first period of
time ends,” as required by claim 21. Accordingly, we find that
the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of claim 21. The rejection of claim 21, under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a), and claim 28, which depends therefrom, is
therefore reversed.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007