Appeal No. 2002-0145
Application No. 09/090,990
. . . . ” Accordingly, contrary to the position of the examiner,
the check for HTML capability occurs at the sender location prior
to the document being sent, and the HTML document is created also
prior to the document being sent. Independent claim 16 is an
apparatus claim, but has similar limitations and it is clear that
the HTML document is created and designated recipients are
checked for HTML capability prior to the document being sent to
the recipients.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims
1-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Zachery in view of what was well
known.
Turning now to the Section 103 rejection based on Tang and
Pallmann, the examiner contends that Tang discloses the invention
“substantially as claimed” (answer, page 8) but did not
specifically disclose the conversion of HTML documents. The
examiner points to column 5, lines 47-60, of Tang for the
proposition that updating of conversion modules as new methods
for conversion become available would have motivated the artisan
“to find other types of message conversion to be used in
combination with the Tang system” (answer, page 8).
The examiner then turns to Pallmann, relying especially on
column 20, line 65 through column 21, line 3, for a teaching of a
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007