Appeal No. 1999-0828 Page 5
Application No. 08/526,743
We begin with independent claim 1. The examiner's position4
(final rejection, page 3) is that Greulich "does not expressly
teach that the [business form] products are barcode printing
supply products." To overcome this deficiency in Greulich, the
examiner takes Official notice (id.) that it "is old and well-
known in the art that barcode printing supply products are
similar to business forms and require much of the same
specification definitions for custom ordering, such as size,
punching and perforations, etc." The examiner asserts (final
rejection, pages 3 and 4) that it would therefore have been
obvious to modify the method of Greulich to provide price quotes
for barcode printing supply products. The examiner notes (id.,
page 4) that although Greulich does not expressly teach that the
initial quote displayed is a default quote, that Greulich teaches
saving orders and opening saved orders. The examiner takes
Official notice5 that the use of default values is old and well
4 The rejection of claims 1-4, 9, 11, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), set forth in the final rejection has been incorporated, by
reference, into the examiner's answer (answer, page 3).
5 The examiner (final rejection, page 8) adds a reference to Mastering
Windows 3.1 to support the examiner's taking of Official notice. The examiner
acknowledges (id.) that appellants have not specifically traversed the
examiner's statement that default values are old and well known. On page 6 of
the answer, the examiner refers to Mastering Windows 3.1, which appellants
note (brief, page 8) has not been applied in the rejection under appeal.
We note the following principle. "Where a reference is relied on to
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007