Appeal No. 2006-3037
Application No. 10/033,225
We will not sustain the examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 5, 6, 15, 16,
and 26. We agree with appellant that Czyszczewski does not expressly or inherently
disclose combining electronic documents generated at the multifunction device with
electronic documents from the user-specified remote storage device as claimed.
Czyszczewski’s multifunction device periodically checks the website to ensure it has a
current document list so that the most current documents are dynamically downloaded
upon request [Czyszczewski, col. 10, lines 59-63]. Such a feature, however, hardly
teaches combining locally-generated electronic documents with other electronic
documents accessed from a user-specified remote storage device as claimed.
Although Czyszczewski’s multifunction device can process both locally-generated
electronic documents and electronic documents accessed from remote sites, there is
simply nothing in Czyszczewski that teaches combining such diverse electronic
documents. At best, the respective documents are independently processed and sent
to remote destinations. Accordingly, Czyszczewski fails to disclose each and every
limitation of claims 5, 6, 15, 16, and 26. The examiner’s rejection of those claims is
therefore reversed.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner's rejection with respect to claims 1,
4, 7-12, 14, 17-25, and 27. We have not, however, sustained the examiner’s rejection
of claims 5, 6, 15, 16, and 26. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims
1, 4-12, and 14-27 is affirmed-in-part.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007