Obviousness

Due to the absence of a "References Cited" section or a detailed list of specific prior art documents in the provided authoritative patent text for US7260587, a comprehensive obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103, including combinations of specific prior art references and motivations for such combinations, cannot be performed.

The "Prior art keywords" listed for US7260587 on Google Patents are "images", "digital", "hard copy", "customer", and "instruction". While these keywords provide a general thematic context, they do not constitute specific patent or non-patent literature references that can be combined for an obviousness argument.

To conduct a proper obviousness analysis, it is necessary to identify:

1. The scope and content of the prior art.
2. The differences between the claimed invention and the prior art.
3. The level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Secondary considerations of obviousness (e.g., commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others).

Without explicit prior art references, I cannot analyze whether a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine known elements to arrive at the claimed invention, nor can I explain why such a combination would have been obvious.