Appeal 2007-1245
Application 09/950,253
We now consider the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kuwata. The Examiner argues that
Kuwata discloses all limitations except for transmitting a confirmation
notice to the browser once a photocopy has been generated. To cure this
deficiency, the Examiner notes that transmitting confirmation notices to
browsers upon completion of specific tasks is well known in the art and cites
Page 4, ¶ 63 of Kuwata as an example of such confirmation notices (Answer
7-8). Appellant reiterates the previous arguments regarding the lack of a
photocopying device, but adds that Kuwata fails to teach a confirmation
notice once a photocopy has been generated by the photocopying device as
claimed (Br. 17-18).
We will sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 14. At
the outset, we reiterate that Kuwata’s scanner, server, and printer
collectively function as a “photocopying device.” In our view, transmitting
confirmation notices to the user’s browser upon completing a print job (i.e.,
generating a photocopy) to inform the user of the status of the job would
have been well within the level of the skilled artisan, particularly since
printing in Kuwata can occur remote from the user (i.e., over a network). As
is well known in the art, such notifications are routinely used to inform users
that a print job is complete and therefore ready to retrieve from the printer.
Although we find the Examiner’s reliance on the confirmation prompt
when deleting a folder in Kuwata problematic for supporting the Examiner’s
position, we nevertheless conclude that transmitting confirmation notices
upon completing a print job would have been well within the level of skilled
artisans for the foregoing reasons. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 is
therefore sustained.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013