Appeal No. 2002-0145
Application No. 09/090,990
§ 1.192 (a)).
With regard to the rejection based on Zachery, the examiner
cites Zachery’s recipient preferred format, comparison of that
preferred format with a transferred document and conversion of
the transferred document to the preferred format. The examiner
then notes that format conversion modules and associated
conversion techniques “were well known in the art,” citing column
4, lines 3-6, of Zachery.
The examiner states that (Answer, page 5):
Zachery’s teachings were very concise, and would have
provided an ordinary artisan with the required conceptual
understanding of electronic mail conversion and transfer for
a multitude of platforms/applications to enable terminal
units having different message interpretation capabilities
to receive, interpret, and display documents of specific
formats.
While Zachery disclosed the invention substantially as
claimed, Zachery did not specifically disclose the use of
hypertext markup language (HTML) as a document format, and
the conversion of HTML to “plain text” for transfer,
interpretation, and display of text messages on
recipients terminal computers.”
The examiner concludes that, since HTML was well known to
artisans and the teachings of Zachery provide translation and
delivery of electronic documents according to recipient
preferred/supported formats, it would have been obvious to
combine an HTML/“plain text” translation module to deliver HTML
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007