Appeal 2006-2704
Application 10/007,829
evidence in support of the Examiner’s position. As such, we remain
unconvinced by Appellants’ arguments (Reply Br. 3-5) that the claimed
functions and the manner of accessing the imaging repository are not taught
by the references. Specifically, we disagree with Appellants and find that
the claimed browser imaging extensions or generic access instructions, to the
extent disclosed in the Specification, reads on the user interaction with the
downloaded Web pages in Farros ‘686.
Based on the presented arguments, the weight of evidence in support
of each side and our findings above, we find the Examiner’s case of prima
facie obviousness to be reasonable and sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of claims 1, 3-5, and 10-15 over Farros ‘810 and Farros ‘686.
With respect to the rejection of claims 16-19, 23, and 24, Appellants
essentially repeat the same arguments addressed above with respect to claim
1 and further point out that neither references discloses a “printing facility”
or a “web site” hosted by the printing facility (Br. 15-17). For the same
reasons we sustained the rejection of claim 1 and the fact that the Examiner
identifies a printing web site in Figure 2 of Farros ‘686 (Answer 26), we
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 16-19, 23, and 24 over Farros
‘810 and Farros ‘686.
Turning now to the rejection of claims 25 and 26, we note that
Appellants focus on similar arguments addressed above with respect to
claim 1 and further point to the limitation of “application programming
instructions” in claim 26 as absent in the prior art. As discussed above, we
find that to the extent disclosed, the recited functionalities are taught by the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013