Appeal No. 2006-3037
Application No. 10/033,225
remote storage device that may have limited access, but nevertheless can be specified
by the user. In this regard, even predetermined links to the forms website 170 and
remote database 175 would render such remote datastores “user-specified” since a
unique datastore -- and the path thereto via the global network -- would be inherently
specified depending on the specific type of data the user desired to access.
Because Czyszczewski expressly and inherently discloses all recited limitations
of independent claims 1, 12, and 21, the examiner’s anticipation rejection of those
claims will therefore be sustained. Since appellant has not separately argued the
patentability of dependent claims 4, 7-11, 14, 17-20, 22-25, and 27 with particularity,
these claims fall with the independent claims. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572,
2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See also 37 CFR § 41.37(c) (I) (vii).
Regarding claims 5, 6,2 15, 16, and 26, appellant argues that Czyszczewski does
not disclose combining an electronic document generated at the multifunction device
with an electronic document the user-specified remote storage device as claimed [brief,
pages 9-13; reply brief, pages 6, 7, and 9-11]. The examiner responds that
Czyszczewski’s multifunction device periodically checks the website to ensure that it
has a current list of documents and that this feature meets the limitation calling for
combining electronic documents as claimed [answer, pages 12-1
2 In the claims appendix, claim 6 recites in pertinent part “…combining said accessed data said electronic document
from said user-specified remote storage device….” [claims appendix, emphasis added]. The limitation “said
accessed data,” however, was previously deleted in the amendment filed Apr. 21, 2005. Accordingly, we presume
that the inclusion of “said accessed data” in the listing of claim 6 in the brief was an inadvertent typographical error.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007