Appeal 2007-1877
Application 09/887,306
contrary, in the Examiner’s finding (Answer 8) that the network server
teachings of Keeney would serve as an obvious enhancement to the printing
system of Suzuki.
We also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 29 in which the Examiner relies upon Suzuki alone, as
well as that of dependent claims 31, 34-37, and 39 not separately argued by
Appellants.1 Appellants’ arguments reiterate those made with respect to
independent claim 19, which arguments we found to be unpersuasive as
discussed supra. As we previously stated, a user in Suzuki at a first
production client interface selects a “print” option upon which a list of
available network printers is presented through a second user interface
enabling the user to select a printer device to implement the print request
captured by the production client.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of all of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-24, 26-29, 31, 34-37, and 39 is
affirmed.
1 Although the Examiner’s statement of the grounds of rejection includes
claim 29 (and its dependent claims 31, 34-37, and 39) in the group of claims
rejected over the combination of Suzuki and Keeney, the Examiner’s
analysis relies upon Suzuki alone in rejecting these claims.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013