Appeal 2007-0933 Page 7
Application 10/310,733
means for the system operator to select whether to print a document on one or two
sides (Bresnan, col. 8, ll. 45-49). This disclosure supports the Examiner’s finding
(FF1) that Bresnan’s printer is recto-verso capable. Furthermore, one of ordinary
skill in the art would understand that if, as Bresnan discloses, the initiating node
includes a means for the system operator to select whether to print a document on
one or two sides, then the system operator is in a position to decide, at will,
whether to recto-verso print documents on the recto-verso capable printer.
The dispute is whether the prior art would further suggest recto-verso
printing a document at will based on a determination that a document’s weight
exceeds a postal threshold as claimed. For the following reasons, we find that one
of ordinary skill in the art would be led to combine the relevant teachings of
Bresnan and Bucci to arrive at the claimed invention whereby a document is recto-
verso printed at will based on a determination that a document’s weight exceeds a
postal threshold as claimed.
Given that the Bresnan printer is capable of recto-verso printing a document
at will, it is necessarily capable of recto-verso printing a document if the
determination is made to do so. One of ordinary skill in the art reading Bresnan
would foresee the system operator determining to recto-verso print documents on
the printer for any number of reasons. Among the conventional reasons for recto-
verso printing a document is to fit more text on a set number of pages. (FF8).
Another reason, one suggested by Bucci, is to reduce the cost of mailing a
document. The Bucci passage the Examiner relied upon to overcome the
difference between Bresnan and the claimed invention evidences the common
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013