Appeal No. 2004-1585
Application No. 09/283,562
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to have
combined Wright into AAPA[2] since Wright provides pages as
fragments gathered from the internet and these pages are bundled
into composite package files, which are considered as objects of
a plurality of fragments” (answer, page 4), the combined
teachings of the references would still not teach the last two
steps of each of the independent claims on appeal. As indicated
supra, none of the stories/objects in the admitted prior art
includes a mix of stories/objects that belong to both the first
class and the second class. In the absence of such a mix of
stories/objects, the admitted prior art does not have to make
publication decisions based upon the mixed stories/objects. The
only disclosure of such publication decisions based upon a mix of
first and second classes of constructed objects is appellants’
disclosed and claimed invention, and such teachings may not be
used by the examiner to frame an obviousness rejection of the
claims on appeal. Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims
1 through 12 and 14 through 22 is reversed.
2 AAPA refers to appellants’ admitted prior art.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007