Appeal No. 2006-0558
Application 09/800,113
The issue between the appellant and the examiner focuses
upon the feature at the end of each claim on appeal of storing
the formatted data in a file “for extraction by the external
monitoring facility.” According to the examiner’s reasoning, the
basis of the rejection of independent claims 1 through 4 in the
statement of the Rejection portion at pages 3 through 6 of the
answer, appellant has not challenged the examiner’s correlation
that French teaches that a print driver formats data in method
claim 1 and system claim 3, and likewise does not argue before us
that French does not teach the formatting feature by the port
monitor of claims 2 and 4.
The basic theme of appellant’s brief and reply brief as well
is the assertion that neither French nor Suzuki nor the
hypothetical combination of them within 35 U.S.C. § 103 teaches
the feature of storing formatted data for extraction by an
external monitoring facility. With this position we strongly
disagree.
The various figures of French illustrate the use of a “save
temp file”, the use of a “queue temp file”, or the showing of a
“queue file”. Thus, French plainly teaches the storing of
formatted information to the extent claimed. Correspondingly, we
do not agree with appellant’s views at page 2 of the reply brief,
that French’s teaching of a queue file leads to the conclusion
that it is only a temporary, volatile holding area for data.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007