Appeal No. 2002-1517
Application No. 08/927,660
we do note that Mighdoll specifically states in column 8, lines 43-46, and column 9, lines
7-9, that “[i]t should be noted that transcoding can be deferred until after the document
has been downloaded, as described above; hence the sequence of FIG. 6 is illustrative
only” and “that transcoding can be deferred until after the document has been
downloaded in some cases.” Here, we find that Mighdoll specifically teaches that the
client may perform the transcoding or altering of the data, but we leave it to the
examiner to evaluate this specific teaching and determine whether it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further perform the analysis or parsing of
data to determine the appropriate transcoding at the client rather than at the
intermediary. Since we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case
of obviousness of independent claim 1, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1 and its dependent claims.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007