Appeal No. 2001-1317
Application No. 08/925,845
document has been received, we will not sustain the rejection of
claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). Even if we assume that Bobo’s
HTML is a “virtual machine instruction code” and that the virtual
machine instruction code, i.e., HTML, is executed, there still
remains some problems in applying Bobo’s teachings to the instant
claim language.
Claim 3 recites a receiving step whereby a facsimile
reception protocol is used to receive data and the received data
has one or more portions associated with virtual machine
instruction code. Therefore, the data received already has the
portions associated with virtual machine instruction code. The
best that can be said for Bobo is that once the data is received
via facsimile machine, Bobo stores these messages and then
converts them into appropriate HTML files. Accordingly, the
received data in Bobo is not in HTML, or virtual machine
instruction code, format. Moreover, if the received data in Bobo
does not have any portion associated with virtual machine
instruction code, as claimed, then Bobo cannot disclose the
identification of those portions of the received data associated
with the virtual machine instruction code, as is also claimed.
Still further, Bobo cannot execute the virtual machine
instruction code “in connection with the portion of the displayed
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007