Appeal No. 2005-0436
Application No. 09/185,212
each input image data (brief, page 23). Appellants further argue
that, when considered in view of the disclosure, the claimed
input image data refers to sub-page-images in contrast with the
“so-called” page images taught in the references (reply brief,
pages 3-5). With respect to Tanaka, Appellants argue that access
to the stored data in the form of a document is through a so-
called “small card” which is different from the claimed image
processing device (brief, page 28).
In response, the Examiner relies on Appellants’ disclosure
which describes “the image output table manages for each page
information relating to ...” and “identification number for
identifying each page of the image data” (specification, page 44)
which indicate that the disclosed images pertain to either page
or document images (answer, page 12). The Examiner further
argues that Tanaka was mainly relied on for teaching management
table means that manages input request and completion information
which would enhance the use of the management tables in
precessing the requested images (answer, page 13).
As a general proposition, in rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting
a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d
1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Fine,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007