Appeal 2007-2091
Application 10/191,161
While the language of independent claim 1 recites “tailored to at least
one capability of a printer,” the language "… neither recites nor requires the
absence of additional processing, rearrangement, or conversion of that
capability. Therefore, we find that the data from the source or transaction
server Todaka is structured (as it would have to be for recognition and
further processing). We additionally find that the received data contains
content concerning spatial resolution or color depth, which it must, since
Todaka stores resolution and usable number of colors for each printer for use
in the conversion of image data in various formats into image data of a
specific format in accordance with the abilities of each printer (Todaka col.
3, ll. 16-20).
We find that the conversion from the various received formats to the
specific format for the printer would have necessarily involved formatted
data at the time of reception, which we find to be tailored to at least one
capability of a printer. As discussed, the structured data that is “tailored” is
not recited to be unchanged in the final output.
Therefore, we find the Examiner’s position to be reasonable, and we
do not find that Appellants have shown error in the Examiner’s prima facie
case of obviousness. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1 and independent claim 5, which has been grouped with independent
claim 1. Additionally, we will sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-4
and dependent claims 6-9 which are grouped with their respective
independent claims.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013