Appeal No. 2006-3037
Application No. 10/033,225
1, 12, and 21, appellant argues that even though the multifunction device disclosed in
Czyszczewski accesses remote datastores, the reference does not teach a user-
specified remote storage device. Appellant emphasizes that the multifunction
controller’s access to remote datastores in Czyszczewski is limited and controlled by the
remote administrator’s database. Furthermore, access is limited to predetermined links
to the remote datastores [brief, page 8; reply brief, page 4]. Accordingly, Czyszczewski
fails to teach or suggest identifying a user-specified remote storage device having the
electronic document based at least in part on a path specified by a user as claimed
[brief, pages 7, 8, 11, and 12]. The examiner argues that retrieving a document from a
remote datastore inherently requires the user to specify the remote storage device
[answer, pages 10 and 11].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 21.
Czyszczewski’s multifunction device, among other things, enables the user to access a
document from one of the optional global services 55 via global network 50. The user
then selects at least one destination for the document and then sends the document to
the destination(s) [Czyszczewski, col. 7, lines 12-25]. The optional global services 55
are shown in detail in Fig. 4 and include databases 150 [Czyszczewski, Fig. 4; col. 6,
lines 50-56]. In Fig. 5, Czyszczewski illustrates exemplary databases 150 that
comprise at least part of the optional global services. Significantly, the databases
include (1) a forms website 170 that enables users to access standard enterprise forms,
and (2) remote database storage 175 that provides various types of information that
may be useful to users [Czyszczewski, col. 9, lines 20-38].
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007