Appeal 2007-1271
Application 10/005,583
More particularly, we decide the following issues we have determined
are dispositive in deciding this appeal:
1. Whether Kuwata discloses receiving a scan request from a user
browser.
2. Whether Kuwata discloses receiving selections made with the
user browser.
3. Whether Kuwata discloses uploading a control screen to the
user browser.
4. Whether Kuwata discloses uploading an application to the user
browser.
5. Whether Kuwata discloses the receiving, uploading, and
scanning are all performed by a scanning device.
6. Whether or Dance or Somashekar teaches or suggests uploading
a control screen to a user browser.
7. Whether a person of ordinary skill in the art having common
sense at the time of the invention would have been motivated to
employ Somashekar’s embedded server in Kuwata’s system
given that Kuwata’s scanning control component is an actual
server.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At the outset, we note that the Examiner’s factual findings are not in
dispute except with respect to the specific claim limitations argued by
Appellant in the Briefs. Only those arguments actually made by Appellant
have been considered in this decision. With respect to the anticipation
rejection (Kuwata), we note that anticipation is a question of fact. See
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013