Appeal No. 2001-1057
Application No. 08/741,470
not explicitly disclose this, the surrogate program of Anupam is embodied by a Java
applet and that it was known at the time of the invention that Java applet programs are
run as an embedded region in the browser. Appellants do not dispute the examiner’s
allegation. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18,
19, 22, 23, 26, 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 38, 39, 42, 43, 46, 47, 50 and 51 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
With regard to the rejection of all the claims, alternatively under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102 (e)/103, appellants argue only, with regard to claim 53, that Anupam “does not
teach or suggest the use of embedded markup language in the chat session” [brief-
page 14].
Again, we agree with the examiner. As explained by the examiner, at pages 5-6
of the answer, embedded markup language constitutes “text based tags” that can be
manually typed in or copied/pasted in the chat session by a user and that unless the
chat program is written to specifically filter it out, there is nothing to prevent a user from
typing markup language in the chat session. The capability to display markup language
is “inherent” in a web-based chat session, “since the browser is already capable of
parsing and display [sic] embedded markup language.” The rationale appears quite
reasonable to us, especially in view of appellants’ lack of any argument thereagainst. In
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007