Appeal No. 2005-0052
Application No. 09/192,014
and Xerox, we simply find no persuasive arguments from Appellants
that convince us of any error in the Examiner’s assertion of
obviousness to the skilled artisan of combining the teachings of
Barton with those of Irons. In our view, the skilled artisan
would have been motivated and found it obvious, as set forth in
the Examiner’s line of reasoning (Answer, pages 6-8), to include
coded routing information, as taught by Barton, on the hard copy
document processed in Irons to direct proper disposition of the
document.
We are also of the view that, as previously discussed with
regard to the Examiner’s proposed combination of Irons and Xerox
with respect to claim 1, our own independent review of Irons
reveals that the addition of Barton to Irons is not necessary for
a proper rejection of claims 11, 14, and 15 since all of the
claimed features are in fact present in the disclosure of Irons.
As alluded to by the Examiner in the responsive arguments portion
of the Answer at page 9, Irons discloses that, as part of the
data encoded on the document tag, information indicative of
instructions related to the disposal of the hard copy document is
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007