Appeal 2007-0781
Application 10/003,150
The invention relates to a pay-for-printing method. (Specification 1:
4-5).
The claims are rejected as follows:
• Claims 1-4, 7, 11, 13, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being unpatentable over Garfinkle (US Patent 6,924, 878).
• Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Garfinkle in view of Official Notice.
We AFFIRM. 2
The rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 11, 13, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over
Garfinkle.
Appellants, in the Appeal Brief, argued the claims together. Because
Appellant argued the claims as a group, pursuant to the rules, the Board
selects representative claim 1 to decide the appeal with respect to this
rejection, and claims 2-4, 7, 11, 13, and 30 will stand or fall with claim 1.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006). Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method for facilitating pay printing, the method comprising:
a network-based printing service retrieving a scaled-down
version of a full-sized document to be printed from at least one store
via a network;
the printing service receiving print option selections; and
the printing service determining printing costs for printing the
full-size document based upon attributes of the scaled-down version.
2 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed Jun. 26, 2006), the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Aug.
25, 2006), and to the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sep. 29, 2006).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013