Appeal No. 2003-1146
Application No. 09/595,249
Freedman. With respect to independent claim 14, the examiner essentially finds that
Crandall teaches the claimed invention except for the automatic selection of the type of
printing equipment being used. The examiner cites Freedman as teaching this feature.
The examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan to modify Crandall to
include this feature [answer, pages 10-12]. Appellant argues that Crandall does not
teach or suggest making comparisons to optimum performance parameters. Appellant
also argues that the “automatic selection” in Freedman is based on the final production
data and not on the information in a job quote. Appellant argues that the claimed
invention contemplates a separate role for the job quote information and the actual print
job specifications which is not suggested in Freedman. Appellant argues that there is
no disclosure or suggestion in Crandall to enter the specification of the type of printing
production equipment being used for the print job into a preference. Finally, appellant
argues that the “acceptable/unacceptable” values in Crandall cannot be equated with
optimum parameters as claimed [brief, pages 21-24]. The examiner responds that the
acceptable values are optimum performance parameters in Crandall. The examiner
also disputes each of appellant’s other arguments [answer, pages 23-27]. Appellant
responds that the acceptable parameters of Crandall are not optimum parameters as
claimed. Appellant also repeats the argument that selection of equipment in Freedman
is based on the final production data and not on the job quote as claimed [reply brief,
pages 4-6].
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007