Appeal 2007-0719
Application 09/731,205
Claims 22 and 23
As set forth in the findings of facts section above, we have found that
Sorkin teaches the client computer directly communicates control data to the
printer exclusive of the flow path through the server, as required in
independent claim 22. (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 22. 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 22 as being unpatentable over Sorkin
and Erie.
Appellants did not offer separate arguments against the rejection of
claim 23. Therefore, it falls together with independent claim 22. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004.)
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellants have shown that the Examiner
failed to establish that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
present invention, would have concluded that Sorkin in combination with
Irie renders claims 17 and 18 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
However, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner failed to establish
that one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the present invention,
would have concluded that Sorkin in combination with Irie renders claims 1
through 12, 16, 19 through 23 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013