Appeal 2007-1245
Application 09/950,253
14; Reply Br. 7). Appellant also contends that Kuwata does not control
photocopying via a browser. In this regard, Appellant emphasizes that
printing is significantly different than photocopying: unlike photocopying,
print jobs are handled by a print server (Reply Br. 7). The Examiner
disagrees and refers to various passages within Kuwata that are said to
disclose the disputed limitations (Answer 12-13).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. As
we indicated with respect to claim 12, we find Kuwata’s scanner, server, and
printer collectively constitute a “photocopying device” giving the term its
broadest reasonable interpretation. As such, the “photocopying device”
receives a request from the user’s browser to photocopy a document as
claimed. That is, a paper document can be scanned into Kuwata’s system
and stored on the server. When the user prints the stored image of this paper
document, the user sends a request to print the document from the browser
to the server. Since a duplicate copy of the paper document is printed, it is
effectively “photocopied” giving the term its broadest reasonable
interpretation.
Appellant’s argument regarding the distinction between copying and
photocopying is simply not commensurate with the scope and breadth of the
limitation. As we indicated previously, “photocopying” reasonably includes
digital technologies that duplicate documents by scanning and printing the
documents.4 In any event, Appellant has offered no evidence on this record
to establish any substantive distinction between copying a document
digitally using a scanner and printer and “photocopying” such a document.
4 See p. 5, supra, of this opinion.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013