Appeal 2007-2091
Application 10/191,161
isolated teaching of a reference out of context is not permissible (Br. 11).
We disagree with Appellants’ argument and conclusion.
The Examiner maintains that claim 1 of the ‘538 application discloses
the use of information to produce the “optimal quality print.” However,
independent claim 1 of the ‘538 application does not state what this
particular data specifically is, or how it is formatted. The Examiner
contends that this generic data would have provided enough motivation for
one of ordinary skill in the art to search the art for other inventions which
“tailor data” to the output device, and to eventually find the Kaneko
reference, which also deals with retrieved data with respect to the type of
printer used (Ans. 4). We find the Examiner’s line of reasoning to be
reasonable in light of the broad scope of independent claim 1. Since
Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection, nor have
Appellants set forth a sufficient rebuttal to the rejection, we will sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2-9 grouped therewith.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
Appellants argue that claim 1 is drawn to a method wherein data are
received in a structure that is tailored to the spatial resolution and/or color
depth of the printer, is processed, rearranged, and converted into a form
suitable for printing by the printer, and are then provided to the printer over
a network (Br. 12). Appellants contend that in the claimed invention (1) the
data are received in a structure that is tailored to the printer’s resolution or
color depth, but the structure is not ready for printing; and (2) the data are
processed into a form suitable for output by the printer. Thus, according to
the invention, although the data are initially received in a structure that is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013