Appeal 2007-0469
Application 10/299,618
We will sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent
claim 1. We agree with the Examiner that the claimed “first portion”
reasonably corresponds to the printer-independent printer language file in
Hicks, and the claimed “second portion” reasonably corresponds to the job
ticket whose “rendering characteristics” reasonably constitute formatting as
claimed giving the term its broadest reasonable interpretation.1
In affirming this factual finding, however, we note that Hicks suggests
that the non-specific printer language file may have some formatting.
Specifically, Hicks indicates that the job ticket is appended to the printer
language file and “contain[s] any other rendering characteristics which may
not be supported by the printer independent language” (Hicks 6:35-7:1;
emphasis added). Since this passage states that the job ticket contains “any
other rendering characteristics,” the passage suggests that the printer-
independent language file could contain some rendering characteristics.
Nevertheless, as the Examiner indicates on Page 14 of the Answer,
claim 1 recites that the first portion is “substantially independent of any
formatting” (emphasis added). Significantly, specifying that the first portion
is “substantially independent of any formatting” hardly requires that the first
portion be completely independent of any formatting. That is, the scope and
breadth of the limitation simply does not preclude the printer-independent
language file of Hicks, notwithstanding the presence of some rendering
characteristics supported by the printer-independent language.
1 As the Examiner indicates, Hicks lists a number of exemplary rendering
characteristics including color or monochrome output, duplex printing,
number of copies, stapling, collating, binding, recipient and destination
information, etc. (Hicks 2:10-12).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013