Appeal 2007-1877
Application 09/887,306
by any convincing arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1 and 9, as well as dependent
claims 2-5, 7, 8, and 11-18 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 19 based on the combination of Suzuki and Keeney, we
sustain this rejection, as well as that of dependent claims 20-24 and 26-28
not separately argued by Appellants. Appellants’ arguments fail to convince
us of any error in the Examiner’s establishment of correspondence (Answer
7, 8, and 16) between the disclosure of Suzuki and the claimed production
client set forth in claim 19. We agree with the Examiner that the selection of
a “setting condition” such as the “print” option (Suzuki, Figures 24 (S13)
and 26) corresponds to the claimed first user interface for selecting a service,
i.e., “print.”
The claimed second interface is also satisfied by the disclosure of
Suzuki since, upon selection of the “print” option, a list of printers on the
network is presented to the user enabling the user to select a particular
printer to execute the print function (Suzuki, Figures 26 and 32). While
Appellants contend (Br. 13; Reply Br. 8) that Suzuki merely teaches an
interface which provides a selection of printing device as opposed to some
other device, we do not find that the claimed production client language of
claim 19 requires anything more. In other words, the system of Suzuki
identifies devices, i.e., network printers, which can produce a production
request, i.e., “print,” captured by the production client.
With respect to the production server aspects of claim 19, the
Examiner has turned to Keeney to address the claimed limitations. We find
no error, and Appellants have provided no convincing arguments to the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013