Appeal No. 2003-1070
Application 09/021,727
teaches that the code is equal to applet-filename. Flanagan
further teaches that the codes specify the filename that contains
the complied Java code for the applet. See page 240 of Flanagan.
Thus, Flanagan teaches that the applet is a complied Java code
and thereby is not viewable by the user. Thus, upon our review
of Liu and Flanagan, we fail to find that Flanagan teaches event-
timing statements being in a user-viewable format as recited in
independent claims 30 and 34. Furthermore, we find that Liu and
Flanagan do not teach reading an HTML document having a plurality
of event-timing script statements identifying the plurality of
multimedia events and respective scheduled execution times on the
timeline as recited in Appellants’ claim 38. Therefore, we will
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 30, 34, 38, 41, 43
and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in
view of Flanagan.
Rejections of Claims 50 through 56
Appellants point out that independent claim 50 recites a
sequencer framework for synchronously invoking a set of events
scheduled on a common timeline. The sequencer framework include
an action set object that interacts with a timer object to invoke
the events at the scheduled time. In particular, Appellants’
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007