Appeal No. 2006-3037
Application No. 10/033,225
In our view, enabling the user to access at least the forms website in
Czyszczewski inherently requires the user to specify the path at the multifunction
device. Essentially, the forms website is a “user-specified remote storage device” since
the user inherently specifies that particular storage device (i.e., the forms website) when
a form is desired. Significantly, the user accesses the forms website via a global
network, such as the Internet [see Czyszczewski, col. 5, line 63 – col. 6, line 2]. In our
view, the specified path to a desired form would be dictated by the protocol used by the
global network (e.g., a uniform resource identifier (URL) used in hypertext transfer
protocol).
Czyszczewski in Fig. 9F shows the multifunction device’s graphical user interface
when the user selects the “Library” tab. As the figure indicates, the user can specify
unique individual forms from a list of forms. Upon selection, the device will retrieve the
selected form from the forms website [Czyszczewski, col. 13, lines 10-18; col. 12, lines
28-32].
Although the user does not directly enter a URL for the desired form in the
multifunction device in this mode, the document’s path is nevertheless inherently
specified since the multifunction device must access and retrieve the selected
document from the forms website via the global network. In short, selecting the form
inherently selects a path to the form.
Even if the content available to the user is ultimately controlled by an
administrator as appellant argues, the user nevertheless inherently specifies the path to
such content by selecting an available form as noted above. Moreover, the scope and
breadth of the limitation “user-specified remote storage device” does not preclude a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007