Appeal No. 2005-2220
Application No. 09/335,189
printer codes on the display device.” Further, appellants argue, on page 8 of the
brief:
[I]t is respectfully submitted that the keyboard does not teach the altering
means for altering the correlation in response to a signal entered through
the input device as required in claim 26. Specifically, it is generally
accepted that a keyboard is used to manipulate data in a computer to alter
the computer’s functions or alter data stored therein. It should at least be
understood that “the keyboard” of Halverson might merely teach “the input
device” as required in claim 26, not “the altering means” as required in
claim 26. Nevertheless, it is respectfully submitted that merely because a
user can enter data via a keyboard into a computer, such entry does not
necessarily translate into a means for altering the correlation in response
to a signal entered through the input device as required in claim 26.
In response the examiner asserts, on page 10 of the answer:
Halverson teach a system database which includes information about the
patient’s name and code as well as drug code, taking directions and
dosage of all medication for example, the Examiner interprets “sleeve id
code” and “quantity of dosage of a drug in the sleeve” as a form of drug
type code, since Halverson clearly teaches that different sleeves have
different quantity of drug and colored difficult [sic] (see: column 9, lines 42-
45, 54-55, column 10, lines 54 and Figure 8).
Further, the examiner states:
Halverson does teach one or more printers with printer settings in strategic
location. However, Halverson was not relied on for the teachings of the
printer activating means, Kraslavsky et al. was relied on for this teaching
using a computer with printing software called Novell NetWareŽ that
allows the user to control (modify) the printer’s functions that include
creating a new print server and print queues, configuring printing ports
(reads on “correlating data to printer codes”) and starting or stopping
printer (see: column 12, lines 6-13).
We disagree with the examiner’s rationale. The examiner bears the initial
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007