Appeal 2007-1877
Application 09/887,306
claimed second interface presented to a remote user which enables the user
to select a production device.
According to Appellants (Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 3-5), in contrast to the
claimed invention which permits a remote user to select production devices,
the submission form 24 presented to the remote user in Van Der Linden
enables the user to only select production printer services such as paper,
color, and finishing options. As argued by Appellants, the actual selection
of a printer device in Van Der Linden is performed by a reproduction center
operator after receiving the selection of desired print services by the remote
user.
After reviewing the disclosure of Van Der Linden in light of the
arguments of record, however, we are in general agreement with the
Examiner’s interpretation of Van Der Linden as stated in the Answer. As
explained by the Examiner (Answer 15), when a new printer is installed in
Van Der Linden (in Van Der Linden’s disclosed example, a printer which
can print on transparent media), an updated interface, i.e., a second interface,
is presented to a user at a remote terminal. (Van Der Linden, paragraph
[0051]). Upon selection by the remote user of the transparent media print
option, the newly added printer device is selected, at least indirectly, since
the newly added printer is the only printer capable of printing to transparent
media. While an operator at Van Der Linden’s remote production center
may actually implement the remote user’s selection of the newly added
transparent media printer, such an operation is not precluded by the language
of independent claims 1 and 9.
For the above reasons, since it is our opinion that the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness which has not been overcome
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013