Appeal No. 2003-1866
Application 08/839,361
contain no such limitations. In fact, the language of claims 35
and 36 is directed to a selection screen for selecting among an
image printing service and an image filing service, features
which we found to be clearly taught at column 4, lines 58-62
of Kristy as previously discussed with regard to claim 9.
Similarly, with respect to dependent claim 37, which adds
a charging information limitation to claim 35, in which the
Examiner’s stated rejection has combined Kristy with Truc and
Yamamoto, we sustain the obviousness rejection of this claim
solely on the combination of Kristy and Yamamoto. As previously
discussed, Yamamoto provides a clear teaching of the use of a
charging information printer in an image printing device, while
Truc is not necessary for this rejection since Kristy suggests
the obviousness to the skilled artisan of the service selection
screen set forth in parent claim 35.
With respect to independent claim 40, grouped and argued
separately by Appellant, we also find no persuasive arguments
from Appellants that would convince us of any error in the
Examiner’s position which offers the combination of Kristy,
Yamamoto, and Parulski. As asserted by the Examiner (Answer,
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007