Appeal 2007-1602
Application 09/940,596
§ 102(e)? Particularly, does Tuchitoi’s disclosure of launching a pop-up
message to indicate that a print job has reached a predetermined status teach
Appellant’s claimed launching of a browser or service to a network location
upon the occurrence of a predetermined event?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. Appellant’s Specification, at page 61, paragraph 0175, describes the
invention as follows:
Referring now to FIG. 12, there is disclosed an invention for
launching a browser and directing it to browse to a web site or service
if a predetermined event is determined to have occurred. This method
could be used for monitoring the progress of the performance of a job
at a web service or network service. In a preferred embodiment, the
event could be the completion of a job, such as a print job or a fax job.
Alternatively or in addition, the event could be the occurrence of an
error, such as for example, an error that has stopped the forward
progress of the job. In the context of a print job or a fax job, that error
might be a paper jam, or a signal that the printer or fax is out of paper.
(See also Br. 5, Reply Br. 4.)
unpatentability is dissipated. Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
Thereafter, patentability is determined in view of the entire record. Id.
However, on appeal to the Board it is an Appellant's burden to establish that
the Examiner did not sustain the necessary burden and to show that the
Examiner erred -- on appeal. We will not start with a presumption that the
Examiner erred.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013