Appeal No. 2003-1146
Application No. 09/595,249
teaches the claimed invention except for using the job quote to automatically select 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 use the
automatic selection of Freedman in the printing system of Crandall [answer, pages 14-
16]. Appellant argues that the automatic selection in Freedman is based on the final
production data and not on information in the job quote as claimed. Appellant’s
additional arguments are similar to the arguments made with respect to claims 14 and
36 [brief, pages 24-25].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claims 21 and 43 or
of claims 22 and 44 which depend therefrom. Claims 21 and 43 recite that the
information in the job quote is used to automatically select the type of printing
equipment to be used for the print job. As noted above, equipment selection in
Freedman occurs as part of the job quote itself, and does not result from the job quote.
The timing of the equipment selection in Freedman is fundamentally different from the
equipment selection recited in claims 21 and 43.
In summary, we have not sustained the examiner’s rejection with respect to any
of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-44
is reversed.
REVERSED
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007