Appeal No. 2002-0056
Application No. 08/868,201
anchor . . . . In this way, an author of a source document can create a hot link which
scrolls to an indicated portion of a destination document . . . .
In short, the user of Nielsen’s system would be able to access a specified portion (e.g., the 10th
Amendment) of the “THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION” hot link (Figure 6), and to thereby
avoid reviewing the whole document.
The examiner acknowledges (answer, pages 3 through 5) that Nielsen does not disclose the
preamble, the first two steps and the last step of claim 1. The examiner states (answer, pages 4 and
5) that the Word 97 publication by Winter discloses that Word can read HTML file formats (page
6), can save a document as different file formats (page 8), and can take into account “designing or
revising a document saved as a Web page” (page 21). The examiner concludes (answer, pages 4
and 5) that the combined teachings of Nielsen and Winter would have rendered obvious the
invention set forth in claim 1.
Appellant argues (brief, page 7) that:
. . . Nielsen relates to hyper-text links between two HTML documents and
solves a specific problem of having a first document link to a specified portion of the
second document rather than an entire document. Nielsen does not relate to the
processing of an HTML document by a non-browser application program or the
storing of information that is associated with the same HTML document and with the
non-browser application program so that the application program need not recompute
the stored information or obtain the stored information from a remote computer.
Appellant argues (brief, page 8) that neither Nielsen nor Winter describes or would have suggested
the steps of claim 1. Appellant additionally argues (brief, page 13) that:
In addition to the failure of the references to disclose or suggest all of the
recitations of the independent claims, the references may not be properly combined.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007