Appeal 2007-1271
Application 10/005,583
b. The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner argues that Kuwata
discloses that the server functions as a document scanner (see Kuwata,
p. 1 ¶ 0008) (Answer 15, ¶ 2).
With respect to issue 5, we note, e.g., that the language of dependent
claim 21 (i.e., “wherein the receiving, uploading, and scanning are all
performed by a scanning device”) further limits the language of independent
claim 1. Thus, claim 21 requires that the receiving, uploading, and scanning
steps of claim 1 are performed by a scanning device. We note again that
Appellant has admitted in the Reply Brief that Kuwata discloses receiving
selections made with the user browser when the user accesses scanned
documents (see discussion of Issue 2; see also claim 1; see also Reply Brief,
p. 3, ¶ 2, ll. 4-5). We also find Appellant has admitted in the Brief that
Kuwata’s “scanning control component is an actual server” (see Brief, p. 17,
¶ 2, l. 3). Therefore, when the language of claim 21 is read as a further
limitation of claim 1, we find that receiving selections (i.e., scanned content)
with the user browser (as admitted by Appellant) corresponds to uploading
content to the user browser from the perspective of Kuwata’s server (as
opposed to uploading from the server a control screen or an application to
the user browser that we have found supra is not disclosed by Kuwata). We
again point out that Kuwata discloses “the server may also function as a
document scanner” (p. 1, ¶ 0008). Thus, we find the weight of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s finding that Kuwata discloses a scanning device
(i.e., a server that functions as a document scanner) that performs the recited
receiving, uploading, and scanning steps.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013