Appeal 2007-0781
Application 10/003,150
The Examiner’s line of reasoning leading to the conclusion that the
claimed invention is anticipated by Garfinkle depends, in part, on
interpreting Ganfinkle’s use of the term “photographer” as encompassing an
operator of a printing service having authorization to access thumbnails
which can be later printed. FF 6. We agree with Appellants (see FF 5) 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.” We are unable to find any indication
in Garfinkle that “photographer” has been given a meaning other than what
one of ordinary skill would normally give it, namely a person taking
photographs. We do not find that a “network-based printing service” is
inherently disclosed by the fact that Garfinkle discloses a “photographer.”
Furthermore, the Examiner does not show that Garfinkle provides “a
teaching of determining printing costs based upon “attributes” of scaled-
down versions” of images.” See FF 8. The Examiner attempts to construe
the claim broadly so that printing service would cover the entire printing
process. FF 9-12. However, we find nothing in Garfinkle that speaks to
determining printing costs based upon “attributes” of a scaled-down version.
The question is one of anticipation. As such, there must be no
difference between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as
viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention. We are not
persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention viewing
Garfinkle and the claimed invention would conclude that there is no
difference between the two.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013