Appeal No. 2004-1707
Application No. 09/127,688
command and print data. Therefore, neither satisfies the claimed
sampling signal, and the examiner's reading of Egawa in the
statement of the rejection (Answer, pages 3-4) fails.
On the other hand, as admitted by appellants (Reply Brief,
page 3), signal ISTB is a sampling signal as it is used "for
latching command data in the interface circuit" (see Egawa,
column 6, lines 3-5). However, as argued by appellants (Reply
Brief, page 3), signal ISTB "is not used to sample or detect
print, or video, data." Accordingly, signal ISTB cannot satisfy
the claimed sampling signal, as it does not "detect data
including command data and print data" (emphasis added).
The examiner asserts (Answer, page 3) that "data is detected
including command data and print data (i.e., video data signal
. . .)[,] transmitted from the host computer in synchronization
with the synchronizing signal." However, the examiner states
(Answer, page 12) that it is the ISTB signal that reads and
detects the video data signal, which is incorrect, as indicated
supra. Thus, we find that Egawa fails to disclose a sampling
signal as recited in the claims.
The examiner admits (Answer, page 4) that Egawa does not
teach that the frequency of the sampling signal is higher than
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007