Appeal No. 2006-1876
Application No. 09/877,522
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(e) as being
anticipated by Anderson >749 or, in the alternative, as being
anticipated by Anderson >538.
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson >749 or Anderson >538 in combination
with Anderson >122 or Anderson >259.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is
made to the brief (filed October 11, 2005), the reply brief
(filed February 2, 2006) and the answer (mailed December 28,
2005) for the respective positions of Appellants and the
Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have
been considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants
could have made but chose not to make in the briefs have not been
considered (37 CFR ' 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
OPINION
35 U.S.C. ' 102 rejection of the claims
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner=s position is that Anderson
>749 provides for an image capture device as the appliance
configured to communicate with a device connected to a network
having a processing device and a memory (answer, page 4). The
Examiner also finds that Anderson >538 similarly discloses a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007