Appeal No. 2003-1883
Application No. 08/953,488 Page 16
discloses sets of bins for different print jobs, and sets
priorities for the additional bins to be used for overflow, such
as the overflow tray, another unutilized unassigned bin, or the
printer output tray (col. 28, lines 37-43). In addition, we
observe that the claim does not recite that the priorities are
different from each other, and the claim is therefore met even if
the same priorities are set for the different groups of bins.
Moreover, Salgado discloses (figure 9) different levels of bin
exclusivity, including "Bin Priority Order: 8, 9, 35, 38, 44, &
23" (col. 15, lines 15-24). We find from the disclosure of
Salgado that users can set different levels of priority for their
bins. Thus, in addition to finding that the limitations of claim
23 are met by Mandel we find that Salgado suggests the setting of
priorities for users’ sets of bins. In sum, we find that the
disclosures of Mandel and Salgado teach and suggest the
limitations of claim 23. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to claims 24 and 25. We treat these claims
together as the claims have been argued together by appellants.
The examiner sets forth (answer, page 8) reasons why the examiner
considers the limitations of claims 24 and 25 to be met by
Mandel. Turning to appellants' arguments, appellants argue
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007