Appeal No. 2006-0223
Application No. 09/754,969
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant points out at page 5 of the brief, the tree
structure of claim 1 is generated based on a root element (the document type definition (DTD)).
Appellant then argues, “it is shown in Fig. 2 of Kuwahara that the ‘relevant’ actions are
taken with the DTD file directly.” We do not agree.
Figure 2 of Kuwahara shows an “SGML Conversion Form” that is generated based on
the DTD, and it is this SGML Conversion Form that relates with the document elements just as
the claimed tree structure relates with the document elements. Appellant ignores the conversion
form in his argument.
Appellant also argues “Kuwahara neither teaches nor suggests the display of the three
items [simultaneously].” We fail to see the relevance of this argument, as the Examiner never
made such a contention for the Kuwahara patent. Rather the Examiner pointed to Arn to teach
simultaneous display of the document and a related tree structure. The display of further related
tree structures being obvious therefrom.
Appellant further argues that Kuwahara fails to generate a tree structure from the DTD.
We disagree. As already pointed out, the “SGML Conversion Form” is generated from the
DTD. As the Examiner pointed out, the information of the DTD can be represented as a tree
structure (Figure 2). An artisan would recognize that the tree structure of the DTD information
carries forward in the information of the Conversion Form/table (figure 7).
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007