Appeal No. 1995-4366 Page 7
Application No. 08/150,744
Obviousness of Claims 178-183
Regarding claims 178-183, the appellants argue,
“Sakakibara fails to teach a data processor which receives an
image from a facsimile device, interprets portions of the
image as data processor commands, and executes the specified
data processor commands to retrieve stored information.”
(Appeal Br. at 12.) The examiner replies, “Appellant is
relying on limitations not found in the claims ....”
(Examiner’s Answer at 10.) We agree with the appellants.
The examiner errs in interpreting the scope of the
claims. Claim 178 specifies in pertinent part “said data
processor transmitting data, responsive to said recognized
graphical or textual images, to a remote location.” To
responsively transmit data to a remote location, the data
processor must first recognize portions of the received image
data as transmission commands. Giving claim 178 its broadest
reasonable interpretation, therefore, the claim requires
recognizing portions of the received image data as
transmission commands.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007