Appeal No. 2004-1749
Application No. 09/047,396
claims 8, 10 and 15", and 2) “neither Venkatraman nor Hanson
discloses the production and transmission of a list of processing
items processed by the image processing means” (brief, page 11).
The examiner does not respond to the first of these arguments.
The examiner’s response to the second argument is that
“Venkatraman[’s] Figure 3 (and column 3[,] lines 19-26) teaches a
list associated with a device URL. This list of items associated
with said device is processed and displayed to a user” (answer,
page 17). Venkatraman’s figure 3 shows a printer home page
having a box containing “printer name”, “administrator” and
“location”. We do not find in column 3, lines 19-26 a disclosure
of a list associated with a device URL. The examiner has not
established that the relied-upon disclosures would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, processing list
information generation means for relating command information
pieces to processing list information pieces and returning the
information pieces to a processing list information transfer
requester (claims 8 and 15) or an information terminal (claim 10)
if the processing list information transfer request is received.
The appellant argues, regarding claims 17-32, that
Venkatraman “does not teach or suggest that that [sic] the web
page provides resource request information related to processing
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007