Appeal No. 1997-2110
Application No. 08/143,687
portion selection already in existence, Vertelney remains
deficient in disclosing the distribution of the entire content
of an object, not just the selected portion, to a context.
As to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of dependent claims 4
through 7, 9, 18 through 21, and 23 based on the combination
of Vertelney and Hoffert, we note that Hoffert was applied
solely to meet the “data stream” manipulation limitations of
the claims. Hoffert, however, does not overcome the innate
deficiencies of Vertelney discussed supra and therefore, we do
not sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 4
through 7, 9, 18 through 21, and 23.
Turning to a consideration of the obviousness rejection
of independent claim 14 based on the combination of Vertelney
and Chang, we do not sustain this rejection as well. While
claim 14 is directed to an embodiment in which selected
portions of objects are distributed from a first data
processing system to a second data processing system, the
claim (similar to independent claims 1 and 15 discussed supra)
requires the combination of the selection of a portion of the
content of an object, the association of presentation
characteristics with the object, and the distribution of the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007