Appeal 2007-0589
Application 09/852,959
was being generated. Once a language is added in Internet Explorer, the
priorities function becomes reasonable to use.
With respect to why it would have been obvious to combine the
references to arrive at “generating said markup language in only said
requested human language”, the articulated reasoning of the Examiner
(Answer 5 and 8) states that it is for the motivational purpose of designating
languages in the web browser for generating web pages. However, the
Examiner’s articulated motivation relates to changing fonts styles/sizes and
the general appearance of fonts in a web page rather than the claimed
generating a new markup language file in only said requested human
language. The Examiner fails to articulate why paragraph 4 on page 4 of the
Internet Explorer reference would lead one to modify the method/apparatus
of Boulter to generate the new markup language file in only said requested
human language based on Internet Explorer’s language dialog box. At most
we have before us a conclusory statement using paragraph 4 of the Internet
Explorer reference and rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741,
82 USPQ2d at 1396 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988, 78 USPQ2d
1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Therefore, we will not sustain and will instead reverse the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons as set forth above.
F. OTHER ISSUES
The Board brings to Appellants’ and the Examiner’s attention the
following prior art references:
Ashby US 6,081,803 Jun. 27, 2000
Fidler US 2003/0191817 Oct. 9, 2003
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013