Appeal No. 2001-0843
Application No. 08/945,415
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the
invention as set forth in claims 1-7 and 14-18.
Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 3, Appellants’
response to the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection asserts that
the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness since all of the limitations of the appealed
claims are not taught or suggested by the applied Shope and
Takayanagi references. In particular, Appellants contend
(Brief, pages 4-6; Reply Brief, pages 1 and 2) that the
Shope reference, relied on by the Examiner as teaching the
production of separate page files for printing, does not in
fact disclose “ . . . producing a page file for each page of
the multi-page job” as set forth in each of independent
claims 1 and 3.
After careful review of the applied prior art
references in light of the arguments of record, we are in
agreement with Appellants’ position as stated in the Briefs.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007