Appeal 2007-1245
Application 09/950,253
In addition, “photocopying selections” are made with the user’s
browser as claimed. In this regard, the user makes such selections via the
“printer properties form” displayed in the browser that enables the user to
configure printing by selecting desired settings (Kuwata Specification 29).
Regarding claim 4, these selections are ultimately delivered to the
“photocopying device” under our interpretation noted previously.
Regarding claims 6-8 and 9-11, Appellant essentially reiterates the
arguments pertaining to Kuwata’s failure to disclose a photocopying device
that receives requests from a user browser, controlling photocopying with a
browser (claims 6 and 9), and the photocopying device comprising an
embedded server (claims 7 and 10) (Br. 15-17; Reply Br. 8-9). For the
reasons previously discussed, however, we find these arguments
unpersuasive and the limitations fully met by Kuwata.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that Kuwata satisfies all limitations
of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 with APA being merely cumulative to the
teachings of Kuwata. We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
based on the teachings of Kuwata alone since we may rely on fewer
references than the Examiner in affirming a multiple-reference rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-
67 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2, 150 USPQ 441, 444
n.2 (CCPA 1966).
Since Appellant has not separately argued the patentability of claims
2, 5, 8, and 11, these claims fall with independent claims 1, 6, and 9. 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).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013