Appeal No. 2003-1883
Application No. 08/953,488 Page 11
From our review of the record, we agree with the examiner
that the portions of Mandel relied upon by the examiner show the
limitations of claim 18. We add that Mandel (col. 28, lines 37-
43) discloses that when the print job is redirected to another
bin, the user is notified. In sum, we find that Mandel discloses
the limitations of claim 18. Accordingly, the rejection of claim
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 19. Appellants
assert (brief, page 10) that the portions of Mandel relied upon
by the examiner do not show each and every limitation of claim
19. However, appellants do not set forth any limitations of the
claim that they consider to not be met by Mandel. From
appellants' response, we find that appellants have not complied
with the procedural requirements of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iii).
From our review of the record, we agree with the examiner
(answer, page 5), who argues to the effect that upon receiving a
message to remove the print job from the bin, and removing the
print job, no further messages will be sent to the user.
Accordingly, we are not convinced of any error on the part of the
examiner, and find that the examiner has set forth a prima facie
case of anticipation of claim 19 that has not been successfully
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007