Appeal 2007-0781
Application 10/003,150
5. Regarding limitation (1), Appellants argued that the passage at col 6,
ll. 1-25 of Garfinkle that the Examiner relied upon to show that Garfinkle
describes this limitation refers to a “photographer, not any ‘network-based
printing service’ can retrieve an online proof sheet that contains small
replicas of his images.” Appeal Br. 7.
6. The Examiner responded as follows:
Appellant argues that Garfinkle does not teach a network based
printing service and that in Garfinkle the photographer, not any
“network based printing service,” can retrieve an online proof sheet
that contains small replicas of his images. The examiner disagrees and
notes that Appellant argues that only the photographer receives the
thumbnails inferring that the photographer is not part of the system.
The examiner disagrees on two levels (1) in Garfinkle, the
photographer refers to any party having authorization to view the
images (col 3 – col 4, lines 1-103), such as when an operator accessing
these images (col 9, lines 5-21) and (2) the examiner understands the
appellant’s invention in relation to a printing service to be more than
that described in item 318 of Figure 3 as stated by appellant and
considers the “network based priting service” to encompass all of
figures 1-9.
(Answer 6.)
7. Appellants responded by arguing in part that, notwithstanding that
Garfinkle defines “photographer” broadly [see footnote 3], “Garfinkle does
not consider a printing service as an entity that qualifies as a “photographer,”
and neither would a person having ordinary skill in the art.” Reply Br. 5-6.
8. Regarding limitation (2), Appellants argue that the passage at col 9, ll.
53-65 of Garfinkle that the Examiner relies upon to show that Garfinkle
3 “As used herein, the “photographer” refers to any party having authorized
access to the images and is not necessarily limited to the party that took the
pictures.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013