Appeal No. 2006-0553
Application No. 09/444,121
claim’s dependence from claim 2, that perhaps appellants meant to
include it only in Group A.
Looking first at the claims of Group A, we take claim 2 as
representative thereof. The examiner applies the references
against claim 2 in the following manner:
The examiner asserts that column 3, lines 12-40, of Brobst
teaches the receipt of a request for a web page; that the
abstract of Brobst teaches the printing of the web page and each
page associated with the web page; and that column 5, line 42 -
column 6, line 42, of Brobst teaches the printing step printing
each of a plurality of web pages associated with the web page on
selected levels below the web page.
The examiner recognized Brobst’s failure to teach that the
printing step automatically and individually prints each of the
plurality of web pages, so the examiner turned to Dubbels (claim
1 and column 5, lines 21-40) for a teaching of a web page print
mechanism automatically generating a web page that contains all
the user-selected web pages and a web client print mechanism 320
that is used to print individual web pages.
The examiner found that since Dubbels taught these
limitations in an environment of printing related web pages,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007