Appeal No. 2001-1624
Application 09/164,583
Anticipation
Appellant notes that each of the independent claims has
language which recites selecting a job from among registered jobs
and registering the job as "a new job," with or without revision
(Br5). It is argued that Gauronski selects a job, edits the job,
and then returns the edited job to memory so that the original,
unedited job no longer exists, so Gauronski does not disclose
registering the edited job as a "a new job" (Br5-6). It is
argued that "new job" clearly refers to a job that is added to a
job list as another job to be processed in addition to the (old)
job that was used to "create" the "new job" (Br6; RBr4), whereas
Gauronski is merely an edited job that replaces the job on the
job list that was used to create the "edited job" (Br6).
The examiner states that the specification does not support
the view that a "new job" is a job in addition to the "old job"
that was revised (EA10). The examiner refers to page 3,
lines 24-26, page 4, lines 3-5, and page 21, lines 18-20, as
support for the interpretation that a revised job is a new job
and that there is no reference to keeping the old job (the job
that was revised) (EA10). The examiner maintains that "[i]f a
job is edited then it is referred to a s [sic] a new job" (FR6).
The examiner states that there is no requirement in the
specification that the old job, which is revised or edited, is
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007