Appeal No. 2001-0954
Application No. 08/977,193
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claims
2 through 6, 8 through 12, 14, 15, 18 and 19, appellant’s
argument (brief, pages 11 and 12) that Yoshiura is not analogous
art is without merit in view of appellant’s admission (brief,
page 11) that Yoshiura “has fax capability.” As indicated supra,
Austin was relied on by the examiner for “management of a
facsimile document on the receiving end of a fax transmission”
(brief, page 11). Accordingly, the obviousness rejection of
claims 2 through 6, 8 through 12, 14, 15, 18 and 191 is sustained
because the examiner did not have to resort to impermissible
hindsight to demonstrate the obviousness of these claims.
With respect to claim 16, appellant argues (brief, pages
14 and 15) that “Baehr teaches the use of a banner page for
selection of an output tray that should receive a print job
related to a particular user . . . , ” whereas “claim 16 teaches
that a banner page can be a portion of a facsimile print job and
that processing of the facsimile banner page may require special
processing or finishing operations.” We agree. The obviousness
rejection of claim 16 is reversed.
1 Appellant’s arguments (brief, pages 11 through 13) were
directed to the claims as a group.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007