Appeal No. 2001-0954
Application No. 08/977,193
desired.” On the other hand, we agree with the examiner (answer,
page 4) that Austin has a facsimile user profile to process a
facsimile image in light of Austin’s teaching “to use the user
profile and attribute to control how the image is processed
. . . . ”
Appellant argues (brief, page 9) that “the invention of
Austin is concerned with the distribution or outgoing delivery of
a facsimile message whereas the present invention is concerned
with printing or other processing of a received or incoming
facsimile document.” Stated differently, appellant seeks to
limit the user profile in Austin “to the sending of a document,
not the receiving of a fax” (reply brief, page 4). Appellant’s
arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, an incoming facsimile
document from the client is sent via the network in Austin
(Figure 13), and the facsimile is then processed in accordance
with the attributes of the user profile. Nothing in the claims
on appeal precludes the distribution of the facsimile document by
the distribution agent to the facsimile printing subsystem
(Figure 13). The user profile in Austin is, therefore, “at the
receiving end of a facsimile message” (brief, page 10). Thus,
the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 7 and 17 is sustained.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007