Appeal No. 2000-1690
Application No. 08/697,808
Riddle to reject claims 3 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Similarly, the Examiner relies on the disclosure of Lewis related
to downloading files to a printer (col. 5, lines 1-3) in
combination with Ng and Riddle to reject claims 5, 12, 13 and 17.
We find nothing in Buchholz or Lewis that is directed to the
client devices communicating between one another if the master
device is absent or has allowed such communication. Assuming,
arguendo, that it would have been obvious to combine the network
of Buchholz or the printing capabilities of Lewis with the
teachings of Ng and Riddle, as held by the Examiner, neither
Buchholz nor Lewis overcomes the above noted deficiencies in the
rejection of base claims 1, 7 and 14. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 3 and 8 over Ng,
Riddle and Buchholz and claims 5, 12, 13 and 17 over Ng, Riddle
and Lewis.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007