Appeal No. 1999-0475
Application No. 08/402,031
Lastly, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 13, 25, 31, and 33 based on the
combination of Greulich and Freiman with Montagna. Dependent
claims 13, 31, and independent claim 33 include a feature
directed to the limiting of printing of documents and forms
until authorization is received for additional printing.
Although the Examiner has applied the Freiman reference to
address this claimed feature, we find nothing in Freiman that
has relevance to the limitations of the appealed claims. In
particular, the portion of Freiman specifically cited by the
Examiner, i.e., Figure 10 of the drawings, is related to a
zoom feature for the EFORM arrangement, not to print
authorization. We further agree with Appellants that even
assuming, arguendo, that Freiman did disclose a print
authorization feature, we fail to see why, absent Appellants’
own disclosure, the skilled artisan would have been motivated
to print and/or restrict the number of copies of documents in
Montagna. As for dependent claim 25 which is directed to the
screen display option of selecting a number of document copies
to be printed, we find no disclosure in Greulich or Freiman,
or any combination thereof, which would overcome the
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007