Appeal 2006-2704
Application 10/007,829
F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Uniroyal, Inc. v.
Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.
1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281,
293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Upon a review of Farros ‘686, we agree with the Examiner that
generic access instructions are downloaded to a client’s browser, as shown
in Figure 2, which allow the client to access the stored images as a part of
the client browser. Farros ‘686 relates to processing remote printing for
electronically designed and transmitted print designs (col. 1, ll. 52-60) such
as business cards (col. 1, ll. 11-16) through downloaded Web pages in a
client browser and accessing the user information files residing on a remote
server (col. 2, ll. 8-16). Farros ‘686 further provides a graphical Web page
through the browser interface on the client’s system for client’s interaction
with the printing system (col. 4, ll. 13-19). Farros ‘686 also describes
imaging repositories that may be accessed by the client when a printing
order is to be placed (col. 4, ll. 29-34).
We also find that the Examiner has properly read the claims in light of
the Specification to determine the claimed terms such as “imaging
extension” which is taught by Farros ‘686 as discussed above. The instant
Specification describes “imaging extension” 310, depicted in Figure 3, as
application programming instructions or a gateway for interfacing with
system-wide standards an accessing the user’s repository (Specification 9-
10). To the extent disclosed, the user interface of Farros ‘686 discloses the
functionalities and the features of such imaging extension and provides the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013