Appeal 2007-0469
Application 10/299,618
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device
independent language and transforms of Hicks to include XML and XSL
respectively to allow the invention to be used on any available device and
transform data to data with specific formatting (Answer 8-9).
Regarding claims 7, 9-11, and 27, Appellant essentially reiterates the
previous arguments made in connection with independent claim 1 and also
argues that Hamalainen fails to cure the previously-noted deficiencies of
Hicks (Br. 14-17). Appellant adds that Hamalainen does not teach or
suggest transforming a second portion containing formatting in a platform
independent manner to generate a platform dependent portion as claimed
(Br. 15).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 9-11, and 27. In
short, Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie
case of obviousness. Specifically, the Examiner has (1) pointed out the
teachings of Hicks, (2) noted the perceived differences between Hicks and
the claimed invention, and (3) reasonably indicated how and why Hicks
would have been modified by the teachings of Hamalainen to arrive at the
claimed invention. Once the Examiner has satisfied the burden of presenting
a prima facie case of obviousness, the burden then shifts to Appellant to
present evidence or arguments that persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima
facie case.
Appellant’s argument regarding Hamalainen is simply not germane to
the reason the Examiner cited the reference. Hicks reasonably teaches
transforming a second portion containing formatting in a platform
independent manner to generate a platform dependent portion as claimed for
the reasons previously discussed. Significantly, Appellant did not dispute
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013