Appeal 2007-0719
Application 09/731,205
motivated to combine Sorkin and Irie to yield the invention, as recited in
claims 17 and 18. It follows that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 17
and 18 as being unpatentable over Sorkin and Erie.
Claims 19 through 21
As set forth in the findings of facts section above, we have found that
Sorkin teaches a distributed system having a client computer configured in
parallel with a printer and a server. The client computer can bypass the
server to directly exchange control data with the printer, as required by claim
19. Alternatively, the client can transmit job data (independently from the
control data) to the printer via the server. (Findings of facts 7 through 9.)
We have also found that Irie teaches a server for translating job data
received from the client before they are forwarded to the network printer.
(Finding of fact 10.) We agree with the Examiner that the Sorkin-Irie
combination teaches the limitations of independent claim 19. 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 19 as
being unpatentable over Sorkin and Erie.
Appellants did not offer separate arguments against the rejection of
claims 20 and 21.4 Therefore, they fall together with independent claim 19.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004.)
4 We note that neither Appellants’ Brief nor the Reply Brief discusses the
rejection of claim 21. Further, we also note that claim 21 improperly
depends on claim 14. It appears that claim 21 should have depended upon
claim 20. We leave it to the Examiner to address this formality.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013