Appeal No. 2001-1604
Application No. 08/785,912
reference teaches a means for doing something responsive to
identification of a link marked for pre-loading, and then, to
assert that that reference does not teach the pre-loading. In
other words, what would be the point of a reference identifying a
link marked for pre-loading if the link is not pre-loaded?
In any event, the examiner relies on Mogul for teaching that
certain types of files and associated graphics are commonly pre-
loaded (citing column 1, lines 62-63) and then, combining this
with Nielsen’s alleged teaching of marking files for pre-loading,
the examiner finds that it would have been obvious to make this
combination since “Nielsen expressly taught the problems and
disadvantages of the prior art are overcome by adding an
extension to html to enable a web page designer to mark files for
pre-loading to allow the web page designer more control over
presentation” (supplemental answer-page 4).
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§103 because, in our view, the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007