Appeal No. 2004-1749
Application No. 09/047,396
items that can be processed by the device. Similarly, Hanson
does not teach or suggest this feature of the claimed invention”
(brief, page 13). The examiner argues that Venkatraman, at
column 3, lines 27-32, discloses an HTTP retrieval environment
(answer, page 13). That portion of Venkatraman discloses a web
page generation means for generating a web page, but does not
disclose that the web page has resource request information
related to processing items that can be processed by an image
processing means. In response to the appellant’s argument the
examiner relies upon his responses to the appellant’s previous
arguments (answer, page 17). The examiner does not explain, and
it is not apparent, how these responses indicate that the applied
references would have fairly suggested the argued claim
requirement to one of ordinary skill in the art.
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the appellant’s claimed invention.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007