Appeal No. 2002-0279
Application No. 09/164,795
document, Appellants’ claimed invention provides a clear
advantage by allowing the user to first select the region to be
scanned, thereby indirectly selecting one or more formats of
data, and then the user finds an application program to process
that format (or formats) of data.” However, it is not clear to
us where this argued “advantage” is apparent in the language of
the instant claimed subject matter.
Accordingly, while we understand that the instant disclosed
subject matter differs from that of the applied reference,
appellants have not convinced us of an error in the examiner’s
finding of anticipation with regard to the instant claimed
subject matter. Thus, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1-
4, 6 and 10-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
Since claims 8, 9, 15 and 17-23 stand or fall with claim 1,
by appellants’ grouping of the claims at pages 3-4 of the brief,
we also will sustain the rejection of these claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to claim 7, the examiner contends that IBM
teaches the supply of a scanned data format to a software
application (referring to page 37, item File format, Export to
application) and that this meets the claim limitation of
“supplying at least one data format for said scanned data to said
-8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007