Appeal No. 2003-1146
Application No. 09/595,249
perceived requirements entered by the client. Therefore, the estimate-related
specifications of the job quote would be the specifications of the product that the
company plans to create based on the company’s perception of the product desired by
the client. Based on these definitions, we view claim 1 as claiming the comparison of
the specifications defining the product that the company plans to create (the job quote)
with the specifications actually desired by the client (the actual print job specifications)
and to indicate any discrepancies between these two quantities.
Claim 1 clearly requires that some of the actual print job specifications be
available for comparison based on the production data which has been stored as a PDF
file. The production data as used in claim 1 is not met by the templates of Freedman
because these templates do not yield the actual contents desired by the client nor do
they result in an electronic document stored as a PDF file. Appellant is correct that
there is no disclosure in Freedman that production data as defined in appellant’s
specification exists in Freedman or that actual print job specifications of this production
data as defined in appellant’s specification are ever available for comparison as recited
in claim 1. Since we agree with appellant that Freedman fails to disclose every feature
of claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. Since claims 2-7 and 10-13
depend from claim 1, we also do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Independent claim 23 has recitations similar to claim 1. Accordingly, we also do
not sustain the examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 23 or of claims 24-29 and 32-
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007