Appeal 2007-0781
Application 10/003,150
describes this limitation misses “a teaching of determining printing costs
based upon ‘attributes’ of ‘scaled-down versions’of images.” Appeal Br. 8.
9. The Examiner responded as follows:
Appellant argues that Garfinkle does not teach [the printing
service] “determining printing costs for printing the full-sized
document based upon attributes of the scaled-down version”. Based
on the above definitions, Garfinkle clearly teaches thumbnail prints
being downloaded to a user to decide which prints are desired and also
to see if there are alternative products that are desired by the user (col
6, lines 1-25, col 8, lines 33-40. The pay for print system of Garfinkle
uses price sheets to calculate the costs associated with desired
products selected by the user to arrive at a price for the order (col 9).
(Answer 6-7.)
10. According to the Examiner, “[b]ased on applicant’s disclosure the
examiner takes this term ‘print service web content’ to mean the entire pay-
for-print process as is defined in FIG 8A and page 26, lines 11-21 [of the
Specification].” Answer 5. However, the term “print service web
content”does not appear anywhere in the cited Fig. or passage.
11. According to the Examiner,”[t]he examiner cannot find an exact
correlation to this feature [“determining printing costs based upon attributes
of the scaled-down version”] in applicant’s specification. … The examiner
understands the process to be downloading the thumbnail to a user so that
the user can view the document/thumbnail to see if the image is desirable or
printable.” Answer 5-6.
12. Appellants responded by arguing that “the Examiner argues that
Garfinkle teaches a ‘printing service determining printing costs for printing
the full-sized document based upon attributes of the scaled-down version’
because the ‘photographer’ can view his images in thumbnail form.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013