Appeal 2007-0781
Application 10/003,150
E. CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated over Garfinkle.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being over Garfinkle
in view of Official Notice.
Claim 12 reads as follows:
12. The method of claim 114, wherein the printing service is
supported by a printing device having an embedded server.
In rejecting claim 12, the Examiner focuses solely on the subject
matter set forth in claim 12. The subject matters of claims 1 and 11 from
which claim 12 depends, and which claims 12 includes, are not addressed.
Answer 4. We presume therefore that, with respect to the subject matter of
claims 1 and 11, the Examiner maintains that Garfinkle describes, for
example, explicitly or inherently, the claimed “network-based printing
service” to retrieve a scaled-down version of a full-sized document to be
printed from at least one store via a network. Since, for the reasons we
discussed supra, we do not find that Garfinkle explicitly or inherently
describes at least the claimed “network-based printing service” to retrieve a
scaled-down version of a full-sized document to be printed from at least one
store via a network, we can not sustain this rejection.
4 “11. The method of claim 1, wherein receiving print option selections
comprises receiving user selections with a web site of the network-based
printing service.”
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013