Appeal 2007-0719
Application 09/731,205
Further, Appellants argue that the combination of Sorkin and Irie is
improper because the Examiner has failed to show any motivation or
suggestion to combine the cited references. (Br. 6.) Additionally,
Appellants reiterate these same arguments against the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 2 through 23.
The Examiner, in contrast, contends that as depicted in Figure 8,
Sorkin substantially teaches the limitations of claim 1. (Answer 2 and 3.)
The Examiner further submits that Irie’s teachings complement Sorkin’s
system. (Answer 3.) The Examiner therefore concludes that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill combine teachings of the cited
references to arrive to the claimed invention. Consequently, the Examiner
concludes that the combination of Sorkin and Irie renders claims 1 through
12 and 16 through 23 unpatentable. (Id.)
Additionally, Appellants argue that the combination of Sorkin and Irie
does not teach control data to include object-oriented rendering data which
distinguishes text, pictures, and business graphics for enhancing document
processing device operation, as recited in dependent claim 17. (Br. 14.)
Similarly, Appellants argue that the cited combination does not teach that
the control data includes object-oriented rendering data such as page
description language data about a document to be made, as recited in claim
18. (Br. 15.) In response, the Examiner contends that Sorkin and Irie in
combination with knowledge available in the prior art render claims 17 and
18 unpatentable.
We affirm-in-part.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013