Appeal 2007-0610
Application 09/766,357
The rejection of claims 4, 13, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kent in view of Cornuejols and further in view of Dowling
and Weiss.
Because Appellant argues claims 4, 13, and 22 as a group, pursuant to
the rules, the Board selects representative claim 4 to decide the appeal with
respect to this rejection, and claims 13 and 22 will stand or fall with claim 3.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006). Claim 4 reads as follows:
4. The computer implemented method according to claim 1, further
comprising passing the optimization model to a print manager for
printing only if the expected profit exceeds the production cost of the
customized layout areas.
A. Issue
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
holding the cited prior art combination would have rendered the subject
matter of claim 4 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention.
B. Findings of Fact
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. We incorporate herein the facts under the Findings of Fact section for
the rejection of claims 1, 8-10, 17-19, 26, and 27 above and add the
following.
2. The Examiner found that:
While Kent does teach a print manager for printing (Kent at FIG. 1 at
34), Kent does not explicitly disclose a step of passing the
optimization model output to the print manager for printing only if the
expected profit exceeds the production cost of the customized layout.
20
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013