Appeal No. 2000-0313
Application No. 08/659,430
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
DeRose et al. (DeRose), “Making Hypermedia Work: A User’s
Guide to HyTime," Jan. 1994, pp. 77-100, 253-274, 295-319.
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by DeRose.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 29, mailed January 14, 1999) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appeal brief
(Paper No. 28, filed November 9, 1998) and reply brief (Paper
No. 30, filed January 25, 1999) for appellants' arguments
thereagainst. Only those arguments actually made by
appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
briefs have not been considered. See 37 CFR 1.192(a).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejection advanced by the examiner, and the evidence of
anticipation relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007