Appeal No. 2006-1732
Application No. 10/033,622
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
3, 5, 7 through 9, 11 through 13, 15 through 19, 21 through 24,
26 and 27, and reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 6, 20
and 25.
We agree with the examiner’s findings (answer, page 3) that
Moro describes a method for “providing print outcome
notification” in steps S284 (i.e., display fact that paper is
different), S353 (i.e., is mounted head same as driver setting?)
and S404 (i.e., are mounted head and head setting of printer
driver different?) in Figures 42, 49 and 54, respectively, and a
step of “determining which print driver settings are selected” in
steps S282 (i.e., obtain setting of paper size designation of
printer driver), S352 (i.e., obtain setting of cartridge
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007