Appeal 2006-2704
Application 10/007,829
imaging repository “via an imaging extension” according to claim 1 is
neither taught nor suggested by the applied prior art (Br. 13). Appellants
further assert that Farros ‘686, although downloads “web pages,” includes
nothing about downloading executable instructions to call an “imaging
extension” that “forms part of a client browser” (Br. 14).
The Examiner responds by stating that the Web pages downloaded by
Farros ‘686 are available for the client to interact with via the user interface
shown in Figure 3A (Answer 23-24). Relying on Farros ‘810 for
functionalities such as “Screen Handlers” and “Printing,” the Examiner
argues that the claimed client interface activities are suggested by the
combination of the references (Answer 24). The Examiner concludes that
providing the functionalities described in Farros ‘810 in a network-based
environment would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan as
suggested by Farros ‘686 discussing remote printing of a custom-designed
material (Id.). Therefore, the question before this panel is whether all the
claimed features, as argued above, are taught or suggested by the applied
references.
As a general proposition, in rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955,
1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596,
1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A prima facie case of obviousness is established
when the teachings of the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Bell, 991
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013