Appeal 2006-2704
Application 10/007,829
references. We also agree with the Examiner that the options shown in
Figures 2 and 3A of Farros ‘686 related to selecting and saving work, are
indeed imaging extensions that require receiving calls in order to interact
with the browser and use all of the available functions. Accordingly, we
also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 25 and 26 over Farros
‘810 and Farros ‘686.
With respect to claims 27 and 28, Appellants challenge the
Examiner’s position by relying on the same arguments presented for claim 1.
For the same reasons addressed above regarding the rejection of claim 1, we
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 27 and 28 over Farros ‘686
and Farros ‘810.
Turning next to the rejection of claims 29, 30, and 32-39, in addition
to relying on the same arguments discussed above, Appellants argue that the
“authentication service,” recited in claim 31, is not obvious based on known
security techniques (Br. 21). Although this argument belongs to the
rejection of claims 31 and 42 over Farros ‘810 and Farros ‘686 in view of
Gralla (Br. 23), we point to the Examiner’s reliance on Gralla and observe
that the Examiner properly presented Gralla as the evidence supporting the
obviousness of the use of authentication service. Therefore, we sustain both
the rejection of claims 29, 30, and 32-39 over Farros ‘810 and Farros ‘686
and the rejection of claims 31 and 42 over Farros ‘810 and Farros ‘686 in
view of Gralla.
Similarly, in addressing the rejection of the remaining claims,
Appellants rely on the same arguments addressed above with respect to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013