Appeal 2007-0469
Application 10/299,618
For at least these reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1.2 Since Appellant has not separately argued the
patentability of claims 2-4, 6, 8, 12, and 15-17 with particularity, these
2 Should additional prosecution follow this opinion, the Examiner should
also consider the creation, display, and printing of standard HTML
documents as fully meeting at least independent claims 1 and 18 given the
broad scope of the claims.
For example, suppose a user created the following simple HTML document
in a text editor:
<HTML>
<B>THIS IS A DOCUMENT</B>
</HTML>
The “first portion” of the data corresponds to the text that is not part of an
HTML tag (i.e., “THIS IS A DOCUMENT”). This portion of the data is
“substantially independent of any formatting” as claimed.
The “second portion” of the data corresponds to the tags that inherently
contain formatting for the first portion specified in a platform-independent
manner (i.e., <B> and </B>). Specifically, the tags specify that the text
within the tags will be bolded when rendered in a browser. Significantly,
such formatting is platform-independent since the formatting will be
rendered in many diverse browsers across multiple platforms.
When the HTML document is rendered in a browser (e.g., a Windows-based
browser such as MS Internet Explorer), the second portion (bold tags) are
“transformed” to generate a platform-dependent formatting portion (bolded
font) for display.
If the user then prints this displayed bolded text from the browser, the
browser would inherently combine the first portion (text) with the platform-
dependent portion (bold font) to generate data suitable for transmission to
the printer (bolded text formatted for printing).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013