Appeal No. 2004-1749
Application No. 09/047,396
prior art. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The examiner has not addressed the
appellant’s specification and the prior art and explained why, in
view of the specification and the prior art, one of ordinary
skill in the art reasonably would have considered the address
information of Venkatraman and Hanson to be control information
as that term is used by the appellant.1 We are not persuaded
that merely because a URL address must be mapped to a unique IP
number, the IP number along with the mapping is control
information.
The appellant argues that 1) “nowhere does Hanson or
Venkatraman disclose or suggest managing control information and
command information related to processing items that can be
processed by the image processing means in correspondence with
each other, and/or converting the command information into
predetermined control information, as recited in independent
1 As an example of the appellant’s URL containing control
information, the specification discloses that “if an URL of
“http://xxx/B600.html” is input, the URL interpretation
section 49 looks up in the management table 50 based on the URL,
thereby converting the URL into setup values to realize a process
of “reading image data at read resolution 600 dpi processed by
error diffusion method” (page 25).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007