Appeal No. 2005-0062
Application 09/222,906
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant argues at
page 6 of the brief, “the representation from which text data is
extracted is not created by the printer driver but by a module
that precedes the printer driver.” We find Appellant’s argument
unpersuasive.
Appellant’s argument is silent as to what module he is
referencing. We have reviewed Yokomizo and fail to find any
module preceding the printer driver (item 6, in figure 1). We do
find a module (item 10-1) following the printer driver and
preceding the key word extractor (item 10-3). However, we find
nothing in Appellant’s claim language that precludes having a
module between the printer driver and the extractor.
At pages 2-3 of the reply brief Appellant further argues
that he has “[eliminated] the need for a new common document
format functionality required by Yokomizo.” We have reviewed
claim 1 and fail to find any such limitation.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
II. Whether the Rejection of Claims 6-7 and 13-14 Under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill
in the particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007