Appeal 2007-0719
Application 09/731,205
independent claim 7. We further agree with the Examiner that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the cited
references to yield the claimed invention. It follows that the Examiner did
not err in rejecting claim 7 as being unpatentable over Sorkin and Erie.
Appellants did not offer separate arguments against the rejection of
claims 8 through 16. Therefore, they fall together with independent claim 7.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004.)
Claims 17 and 18
As set forth above, claim 17 requires that the control data include
object-oriented rendering data including text, pictures, business graphics for
enhancing document processing operations while claim 18 requires the
control data to further include page description language data about a
document to be made. As detailed in findings of fact section above, we have
found that Sorkin teaches the client and printer directly exchange control
data to include rendering data for configuring, setting up and monitoring the
printer. (Finding of fact 9). We have found, however, that the control data
to be directly communicated to the printer, as taught by Sorkin, does not
particularly deal with object rendering data that includes text, graphics and
description language about a document to be made. Rather, it is generally
limited to configuration or setup data, which does not particularly deal with
specific documents. Therefore, we do not agree with the Examiner that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized that data exchange
for setting up and configuring a printer would necessarily include object-
oriented rendering data as recited in claims 17 and 18. We further do not
agree with the Examiner that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013