Appeal No. 96-2242
Application No. 08/083,242
does not “provide the objects with attributes that are
relevant to the presentation of the object” (Brief, page 7).
With respect to the claimed “transforming” of the “object
into a displayable format in accordance with said attributes,”
we do not agree with the examiner’s unsupported conclusion
(Answer, page 5) that the “attributes which are used . . .
can be found in Norden-Paul[’s] network administration
system.” Norden-Paul is completely silent as to such a
display transformation attribute. We are not aware of any
necessity for such a transformation in the Norden-Paul system,
and the examiner has not provided any line of reasoning
addressing this point. For this reason, we agree with
appellants’ argument (Brief, page 7) that “Norden-Paul does
not teach this, as there is no suggestion of transforming the
object before providing the object to a presentation device.”
Based upon the foregoing, the obviousness rejection of
all of the claims on appeal is reversed because they are all
directed to transforming the object into a displayable format
in accordance with an attribute.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007