Appeal No. 2003-1146
Application No. 09/595,249
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 14. First, we agree with
appellant that the teaching of acceptable values in Crandall is not the same as
outputting any actual print job specifications that are not optimum as claimed. Second,
the invention of claim 14 determines which parameters have not been optimized after
the job quote has been determined and the specific equipment to be used has been
selected. Freedman, on the other hand, suggests selecting the optimum printing
equipment based on the actual print job specifications. Thus, Freedman selects the
optimum equipment to be used based on the actual print job specifications whereas the
claimed invention selects the equipment as part of the job quote and then determines
which parameters are not optimum based on that selection. These are two entirely
different processes.
Since we have not sustained the rejection of independent claim 14, we also do
not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 15 and 17-20. Independent claim 36 has
recitations similar to claim 14. Therefore, we also do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 36 or of claims 37 and 39-42 which depend therefrom. With respect
to dependent claims 16 and 38, which are rejected using the additional teachings of
Inoue, we also do not sustain the rejection of these claims because Inoue fails to
overcome the deficiencies of Crandall and Freedman discussed above.
With respect to independent claims 21 and 43, the examiner finds that Crandall
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007