Appeal No. 1997-2110
Application No. 08/143,687
entire object. For the reasons discussed previously, it is
our view that Vertelney is deficient in disclosing the claimed
combination of features.
The Chang reference, which is directed to a multimedia
conferencing system, was applied by the Examiner as part of
the combination to supply a teaching of distributing messages
(i.e. objects) from a first data processing system to a second
data processing system. Chang, however, does not disclose the
selection of a portion of object content along with the
distribution of presentation characteristics and the entire
object content to a context. As such, Chang does not overcome
the deficiencies of Vertelney and we, therefore, do not
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 14.
In conclusion, we have not sustained any of the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of the claims on appeal.
Accordingly, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1
through 9 and 11 through 23 is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007