Appeal 2007-1602
Application 09/940,596
network location if a predetermined event is determined to have occurred.
We find that Tuchitoi reasonably teaches that limitation. As detailed in the
Findings of Fact section above, we have found that Tuchitoi teaches that,
upon the completion of a print job on a printing apparatus, an information
manager sends a notification of the completed print job to a utility module to
generate a pop up message to a user on a host computer on a network.
(Finding of Fact 6). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize
that Tuchitoi’s disclosure of sending the notification to the utility module to
generate the pop up menu teaches Appellant’s sending of a command to a
browser or service. Particularly, the ordinarily skilled artisan would readily
appreciate that the pop up menu is only generated as a result of the
instructions that the information manager dispatched to the utility module to
forward a certain status of the print job to a particular address on the
network. Further, the ordinarily skilled artisan would also recognize that,
similarly to the claimed invention, Tuchitoi’s notification is sent to a host
from the printing apparatus to be displayed on the host, upon the occurrence
of the completion of a print job (a predetermined event). In light of these
findings, we conclude that Tuchitoi teaches the limitation of sending a
command to a system to launch the browser or service to a particular
network location if a predetermined event is determined to have occurred. It
follows that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 through 14 as
being anticipated by Tuchitoi. We affirm this rejection.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013