Appeal No. 2001-1057
Application No. 08/741,470
fact, appellants’ argument, in toto, in this regard, is to state that Anupam “does not
teach or suggest the use of embedded markup language in the chat session.” The
examiner recognized this and provided reasoning as to why the skilled artisan would
have found it obvious, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, to employ embedded
markup language in the chat session, reasoning, we might add, which has been totally
ignored by appellants as there is no rebuttal to such reasoning in the appeal brief and
there is no reply brief of record. Accordingly, we adopt the examiner’s reasoning as our
own and sustain the rejection of claims 5-112 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (e)/103.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007