Appeal No. 2006-1732
Application No. 10/033,622
(brief, pages 9 and 10) that “[a]lthough a mismatch between the
print head that is in the printer and a print head selection made
with the driver may result in the wrong color being printed
(e.g., monochrome instead of color), such a mismatch would not
adversely affect the print quality (i.e., the quality of the
image as it appears on the page).”
We agree with the appellant’s arguments that print quality
would not be adversely affected by the above-noted printing
errors; however, we find that such errors when repeated over time
will “result in consumption of large amounts of printing device
consumables” (e.g., wasted paper and ink/toner). The appellant’s
argument to the contrary notwithstanding, any print job that has
to be repeated because of an error results in the waste of
“printing device consumables” (brief, page 12). Thus, the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5, 7 through 9, 11
through 13, 15 through 19, 21 through 24, 26 and 27 is sustained.
The obviousness rejection of claims 6, 20 and 25 is reversed
because we agree with the appellant’s argument (brief, pages 13
and 14) that “merely identifying an adverse result does not
include the additional feature of also providing an indication of
how severe the adverse result is.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007