Ex parte Pawlowski et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 26, 1998

07788829 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 26, 1998)

Application for patent filed November 7, 1991.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte WOJCIECH PAWLOWSKI

_____________
Appeal No. 95-1655
Application 07/788,8291
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, BARRETT and LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 to 23, which constitute all the
claims in the application.
Appeal No. 95-1655
Application 07/788,829
Our understanding of this reference is based upon a2
translation provided by the Scientific and Technical Information
Center of the Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the
translation is enclosed with this decision.
Claim 11 on appeal depends from itself at page 32 of the3
brief as well as the amended version of this claim filed on
October 22, 1992. We note that the original version of claim 11
indicated that this claim dependent from claim 10.
Appellant’s corrected pages 18 and 28 of the brief have4
been substituted therein and considered by us in our
deliberations.
2
The pertinent portion of representative independent claim 1
on appeal is that an 8-bit microprocessor operates with its four
lowest data bits only being connected to one control device and
with its four highest data bits only being connected to the other
control device. Comparable limitations are found in the
remaining independent claims 10, 21 and 23.
The following reference is relied on by the examiner:
Nishida 56-116188 Sep. 11, 19812
Claims 1 to 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light
of the collective teachings of appellant’s admitted prior art in
view of Nishida.3
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer for the4
respective details thereof.
OPINION
Appeal No. 95-1655
Application 07/788,829
3
We reverse this rejection.
Appellant’s prior art Fig. 3 and its associated discussion
at specification page 3 indicates that the prior art
controller/driver 16 may be operated with either 4-bit or 8-bit
microprocessors. Fig. 3 itself shows an 8-bit microprocessor
operated in an 8-bit mode with one of these prior art
controller/drivers.
On the other hand, prior art Fig. 4 also shows an 8-bit
microprocessor used in an 8-bit mode for two of the above
identified prior art controller/drivers each of which in turn is
operated in an 8-bit mode.
To meet the above noted feature of representative
independent claim 1 and the other independent claims having
comparable features, we need a teaching which indicates that an
8-bit microprocessor as claimed may operate to provide outputs
from two 4-bit modes. We do not derive such a teaching from
Nishida, which contains no teaching or suggestion of utilizing a
microprocessor in any manner. In contrast to a normal digital
data operated system, analog data feeds the ADC 2 in Nishida’s
Fig. 2 providing 8 output bits feeding in parallel to decoder-
drivers 5 and 6 respectively as well as a single decoder-driving
circuit 4. This latter driver feeds a thermal print head and the
Appeal No. 95-1655
Application 07/788,829
4
other decoder-drivers 5 and 6 operate to drive the LEDs indicated
in the figure. These decoder-drivers 5 and 6 essentially split
the bit output from the buffer register 3 in an effort to
respectively drive the LEDs 500 etc. and 600 etc. respectively.
Considering the collective teachings of the references, we
find there is no teaching in the prior art relied upon to cause
an 8-bit microprocessor to operate in a 4-bit output mode or some
form of a two step 4-bit output mode, such that the data output
from such a microprocessor may be split or paired between
respective control devices. Because Nishida has no such
microprocessor, the suggestion to do so to meet the above noted
language of each independent claim cannot come from Nishida, and
it is not present in the admitted prior art either. Thus, we
conclude that the collective teachings of the prior art, even if
properly combinable within 35 U.S.C. § 103, would not have led
the artisan to the subject matter of the claims on appeal.
Appeal No. 95-1655
Application 07/788,829
5
In view of the foregoing, we reverse the rejection of claims
1 to 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
)
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JAMESON LEE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-1655
Application 07/788,829
6
WARE, FRESSOLA, VAN DER SLUYS and ADOLPHSON
755 Main Street, Bldg. 5
P. O. Box 224
Monroe, CT 06468