Appeal No. 2001-2241
Application No. 08/928,555
the examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation, and we cannot
sustain the rejection of independent claim 10 and dependent claims 11-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 over Wright. With respect to independent claim 1 the examiner has
not addressed the selection of descriptive material and expanding the selected section
in context with the other sections. The examiner maintains that the sections of Wright
are displayed one at a time. (See answer at page 5.) Therefore, it is unclear how
Wright teaches display of a plurality of sections on a form as recited in the language of
claim 1. We find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation, and we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent
claims 2-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Wright.
35 U.S.C. § 103
With respect to independent claims 6, 15, 20, 27, 33, and 34,3 the examiner
maintains that in light of the great breadth of the claims and the examiner’s finding of
anticipation of claims 1-5 and 10-15, the use of HTML would have been obvious since it
was a convenient and efficient programming technique. (See answer at page 5.) We
agree with the examiner that the mere addition of HTML to the above methods is not a
great addition technically, but the examiner has not shown how the individual teachings
of Microsoft and Wright in combination with Bertram remedy the noted deficiencies in
3 We note that only independent claim 6 recited the use of HTML and the other claims are
variations on the basic claims 1 and 10 which the examiner rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Additionally
dependent claims 13, 25, 26, 32, and 37 contains limitations to HTML or mark up languages. Therefore,
we are not clear as to the use of Bertram for the other claims.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007