Appeal 2007-1245
Application 09/950,253
generated, at least in part, by data uploaded to the user’s browser from the
server.
Although Appellant acknowledges that Kuwata’s server can generate
screens that can be uploaded to the user’s browser, Appellant nevertheless
argues that the reference does not teach that Kuwata’s photocopier performs
this function (Reply Br. 6). But as we indicated previously, Kuwata’s
“photocopier” includes the server with the scanner and printer coupled
thereto.
Regarding claim 15, we find that Kuwata amply discloses a
multifunction peripheral as claimed. Specifically, we note that the
Copier/Scanner/Fax/Printer shown in Fig. 3 certainly performs multiple
functions as its label suggests – namely copying, scanning, faxing, and
printing.
For at least these reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 12 and 15. Since Appellant has not separately argued the
patentability of dependent claim 13, it falls with independent claim 12. See
In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987);
see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Obviousness Rejections
We now consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kuwata in view of APA. In rejecting
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the Examiner to
establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See
In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In
so doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013