Appeal No. 2005-0074
Application No. 09/739,080
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 33 and 49 under section
102(e) over Provost.
C. The § 102(b) Rejection over Watanabe
The examiner finds that Watanabe discloses a card print
mechanism, a network and adapter, a web client and a web server
(Answer, page 5). Appellants argue that the terminal unit 39 of
Watanabe is actually a device that is connected to the image file
server 38 and is used to access data stored therein (Brief, page
6). Appellants thus argue that the cited component 39 is not a
component of the printing device 21 of Watanabe and does not
operate as a “web client” (id.).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. As construed
above, a “web client” can communicate, view and/or access data
objects over a network. Therefore we agree with the examiner
that the retrieval terminal unit 39 is a “web client” since it
can retrieve and output data from image file server 38 (col. 4,
ll. 40-42). Additionally, we note that image file server 38 may
also be considered a “web client” of host computer 34 since the
written data and ID photo data obtained at the automatic
reception apparatus 5 are transmitted via LAN channel 37 to the
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007