Appeal No. 2006-0621
Application No. 09/938,237
We note that appellants’ brief raises questions regarding
the propriety of the finality of the final rejection and whether
the examiner properly communicated to appellants the findings in
support of the various rejections. As noted by the examiner,
however, these questions relate to petitionable matters and are
not within our jurisdiction.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11
and 21 based on Miyawaki and Yamanaka. The examiner essentially
finds that Miyawaki discloses the claimed invention except for
the details of the synchronization between the controller of the
marking engine and the resource. The examiner cites Yamanaka as
teaching this feature. The examiner finds that it would have ben
obvious to the artisan to incorporate the synchronization
teachings of Yamanaka into the document processing system of
Miyawaki [answer, page 9].
Appellants argue that the examiner has not properly
established some suggestion or motivation to combine Miyawaki and
Yamanaka. Specifically, appellants argue that Miyawaki has
nothing to do with clock synchronization. They also argue that
Yamanaka uses a serial communications channel rather than the
discrete signal as claimed. Appellants argue that Yamanaka is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007