Appeal No. 2002-0119
Application No. 09/015,713
document is displayed whereas Hamilton only refers to short-name
and long-name entries as a part of the protocol-dependent values
used by the server computer. In concluding that Schumacher’s
indication of “to have headings that provide overview
information” (answer, page 3) justifies using short-name headings
of Hamilton in a structured document, the Examiner attempts to
forge a combination of a document browser that is getting away
from information links within the document and a scheme of
handling method calls encoded with different protocols. Thus,
assuming, arguendo, that it would have been obvious to combine
Schumacher with Hamilton, as held by the Examiner, the
combination would still fall short of teaching or suggesting the
claimed forming the main and the associated portions having
anchor tags for displaying the text appearing in the long-name
and short-name fields, respectively.
In view of our analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness because the
necessary teachings and suggestions related to the claimed
forming of a main portion and an associated portion of an index
entry having anchor tags, as recited in independent claims 1, 4
and 7, are not shown. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 4 and 7, nor of
claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 dependent thereon.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007