Appeal No. 2005-0074
Application No. 09/739,080
image file server 38 (col. 4, ll. 36-40), thus falling within the
scope of a “web client” as construed above.
With regard to the rejection of claim 49, appellants argue
that the cited file server 38 of Watanabe is not a component of
an ID card personalization device as illustrated in Figure 2
(Brief, page 13). This argument is not well taken since Figure 2
is not claimed and appellants have provided no argument or
reasons why the claimed subject matter has not been described by
Watanabe.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 33 and 49 under §
102(b) over Watanabe.
D. The § 102(b) Rejection over D’Entremont
The examiner finds that D’Entremont discloses a card print
mechanism, a network and adapter, a web client and a web server
(Answer, page 5). Appellants argue that the data acquisition
units 22 of D’Entremont are not formed as components of the
recording unit 14 (Brief, page 7). This argument is not
persuasive for reasons stated by the examiner (Answer, page 9),
namely that once connected to the printer, the data acquisition
unit 22 becomes a “web client” having a modem and transmitting
data to the server, and thus becomes a “part” of the ID card
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007