Appeal 2007-0469
Application 10/299,618
claims fall with claim 1. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Regarding claim 5, we agree with the Examiner that Hick’s teaching
of appending the job ticket to the printer-independent printer language file
reasonably teaches that the job ticket and language file are at least initially
held in separate files. Even if the first and second portions are ultimately
transmitted to the server as a single file as Appellant argues, the scope of the
claim simply does not preclude the job ticket being separate from the printer
language file prior to appending the job ticket to the printer language file.
The rejection of claim 5 is therefore sustained.
Regarding claim 18, Appellant argues that Hicks does not disclose the
limitations of the claim “for reasons described in the foregoing” (Br. 11).
For the reasons previously discussed in connection with claim 1, however,
Appellant has not rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case of anticipation
based on Hicks. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 18 as well as claims 19 and 21 dependent thereon. Moreover, since
the limitations recited in claim 23 are commensurate with claim 5, we will
likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23 for the reasons
previously discussed with respect to claim 5.
Regarding claims 26 and 28-30, Appellant similarly argues that Hicks
does not disclose the limitations of the claims “for reasons described in the
foregoing” (claims 26, 29, and 30) (Br. 12, 14) or “for reasons described
above” (claim 28) (Br. 13). For the reasons previously discussed in
connection with claim 1, however, Appellant has not rebutted the
Examiner’s prima facie case of anticipation. Accordingly, we will sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 26 and 28-30.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013