Appeal No. 2002-0145
Application No. 09/090,990
Zachery. Further, as appellant points out, at pages 23-24 of the
principal brief, if Zachery was somehow combined with these “well
known” HTML documents, it would appear that the result would be
the performance of an HTML conversion after the electronic
message was sent, i.e., when it was received by the recipient,
unlike, as is required by the instant claims, creating an HTML
document prior to sending the document.
The examiner disputes this by contending, at page 14 of the
answer, that the claims “do not specifically recite functionality
drawn to conversion before the message is sent from a particular
machine.” The examiner also contends that “the claims do not
include provision for checking recipient HTML capability at a
local sender location, nor does the claim specify where the
‘sending’ occurs from. The claims do not preclude functionality
of the claimed invention at remote locations, nor any specific
order of functionality” (answer, pages 14-15). We disagree.
The claims very much do specify checking HTML capability at
a sender location and do require conversion before the message is
sent. For example, claim 1 is a process reciting sequential
steps. The first two steps are “creating an HTML document” and
“checking the designated recipients for HTML capability.”
These two steps take place prior to the third step of “sending
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007