Appeal 2007-0469
Application 10/299,618
Hicks does not disclose the limitations of independent claim 1 which call
for, in pertinent part, specifying data in (1) a first format-independent
portion, and (2) a second platform-independent portion containing
formatting information that is transformed to a platform-dependent portion.
Appellant notes that Hicks teaches (1) creating and embedding formatting
instructions in the document at the start of the process; (2) providing
instructions in a printer-independent language; and (3) determining the
appropriate printer to handle the document. Appellant, however, emphasizes
that the printer-independent language file already contains the formatting
information for the document (Br. 9). According to Appellant, the document
in the printer-independent language and the appended job ticket comprise
the entire file that is transmitted to the system server; therefore, formatting
information must be in the document or else the information is non-existent
(Br. 10).
The Examiner argues that claim 1 is fully met by Hicks since, among
other things, the claimed “first portion” corresponds to the electronic
document in the printer-independent language file in Hicks, and the “second
portion” as claimed corresponds to the job ticket that is appended to the
printer-independent file. The Examiner emphasizes that the job ticket
contains specific information concerning the desired output presentation
including “rendering characteristics.” These rendering characteristics,
according to the Examiner, constitute formatting for the first portion (i.e., the
printer-independent language file). The Examiner notes that once the job
ticket is appended to the electronic document, it is routed to a device-
specific assembler (i.e., a transform) that changes the data to a device-
specific form that is sent to the appropriate output device (Answer 13-15).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013