Appeal No. 2006-0558
Application 09/800,113
While this discussion of a gueue file is generally the common
view in the art as to what a queue file comprises with respect to
the functions it performs, the fact that the queue file does
store data even for a temporary period of time inescapably leads
to the conclusion that an output device may extract the
information therefrom at a later point in time even if the
extraction is only moments later, to the extent argued otherwise
in the brief and reply brief.
As variously argued in the brief and reply brief, appellant
appears to urge us to read into the feature of the language of
each independent claim “for extraction by an external monitoring
facility” as requiring a request from such a monitoring facility
for a read operation from a stored file, that the information is
stored “until the external monitoring facility requests the data”
as argued at the top of page 6 of the principal brief on appeal
or as otherwise stored until the external monitoring facility
actively extracts the data from the system. On the other hand,
what is actually claimed is the preposition “for” which includes
a present tense extraction capability as well as a future act yet
to occur. Because it is clear from French that the various
queues or buffers provide temporary stores or temporary files
storing data, a printer device that subsequently or even
comtemporaneously or substantially simultaneously receives data
from these temporary files may be fairly characterized in the art
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007