Appeal No. 2006-1279
Application No. 10/249,005
sustain the examiner's rejection of those claims as well as
claims 2 and 3 dependent on claim 1.
We reach a different conclusion, however, with respect to
independent claim 4. Unlike independent claims 1 and 9, claim 4
does not require detecting the entire document content. Rather,
claim 4 merely calls for, in relevant part, (1) an illuminating
source for illuminating the entire document in the protective
enclosure, (2) an image detector for receiving illumination from
the illuminating source, (3) a printer for printing a new hard
copy version of the document (emphasis added), and (4) an image
transmitter for transmitting a detected document to a recipient.
We first note that the examiner rejected claim 4 on the same
grounds as claims 1 and 9 [answer, page 7]. Appellant did not
separately argue the limitations of claim 4, but merely
underlined certain limitations of the claim in connection with
the argument pertaining to claim 5 [brief, page 12]. By not
separately arguing the limitations of claim 4, appellant has not
persuasively rebutted the examiner's prima facie case of
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007