Appeal No. 2003-1070
Application 09/021,727
format, wherein each statement expresses an execution time for an
event in terms of a position along a common timeline by which the
execution of the plurality of events are synchronized. Finally,
Appellants point out that the remaining independent claim 38
calls for a timeline that is a common time reference for
scheduling events and a HTML document that has a plurality of
event-timing script statements. See page 7 of Appellants’ brief.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not shown that Liu or
Flanagan teaches or suggests that the execution time is specified
in the statement as part of a user-viewable format, and the user
can read the expressed execution time directly when viewing the
event-timing statement. See page 10 of Appellants’ brief.
The Examiner responds by stating that Flanagan, in
combination of Liu, shows that the statements within an applet
embedded in a Web page are in a user-viewable format. See page 4
of the Examiner’s answer.
Appellants argue that in response to the Examiner’s argument
that the Examiner’s reliance on Liu and Flanagan for the claim
rejection is misplaced. Appellants argue that the Examiner
appears to have based the rejection on an erroneous impression
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007