Appeal No. 2005-0074
Application No. 09/739,080
device. We additionally note that the central image server 20
may also be considered a “web client” since data is transmitted
from data acquisition unit 22 to file server 20 (col. 6, ll. 49-
53), thus falling within the scope of a “web client” as properly
construed above.
With regard to the rejection of claim 49, appellants argue
that the cited image server 20 of D’Entremont is illustrated as
being separate from recording unit 14 and thus is not a component
of an ID card personalization device as claimed (Brief, page 14).
We again refer to and adopt the examiner’s reasoning that the
“web client” is connected to and a component of the device
(Answer, page 9).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 33 and 49 under section
102(b) over D’Entremont.
E. The Rejections under § 103(a)
The examiner adopts the findings from OrdaCard and Provost
as previously discussed (Answer, pages 5-6). With regard to the
rejection over OrdaCard, the examiner further finds that Knowlton
discloses the use of a web page containing links to information,
where the links employ the “universally used common language as
HTML” (Answer, page 6). With regard to the rejection over
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007