Appeal 2007-0469
Application 10/299,618
a first portion containing data that it [sic] is desired to send to said
data-receiving devices, held in a platform independent form, and being
substantially free of any formatting information; and
a second portion specifying how the first portion should be displayed
on said data-receiving device, said second portion containing formatting
information for said first portion specified in a platform independent
manner.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Ritchie US 4,829,421 May 9, 1989
Hicks WO 00/23912 A1 Apr. 27, 2000
Marmor US 2002/0026475 A1 Feb. 28, 2002
(filed Aug. 28, 2001)
Hamalainen US 2003/0060284 A1 Mar. 27, 2003
(filed Mar. 19, 2001)
The Examiner’s rejections are as follows:
1. Claims 1-6, 8, 12, 15-19, 21, 23, 26, and 28-30 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hicks.
2. Claims 7, 9-11, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 31, and 32 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hicks in view of Hamalainen.
3. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hicks in view of Ritchie.
4. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hicks in view of Marmor.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
refer to the Brief and the Answer for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013