Appeal No. 2006-0653
Application 09/211,337
With this background in mind, we must reverse the rejection
of independent claims 1, 7, 21, 22, 24 and 30 and,
correspondingly, their dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Representative independent claim 1 requires “said file containing
at least one reference to at least one image, stylesheet or
object” as well as the requirement that “said folder containing
said at least one image, stylesheet or object referenced in said
file.” Corresponding limitations are recited in effect in each
independent claim on appeal.
Based on the examiner’s interpretations of Carter/Mangosoft
as well as our review of the entire reference, it appears to us
that the noted relationship of the data with respect to the
individual files and folders as recited in representative
independent claim 1 is not taught in this reference. The
hierarchy of the structured file system 60 in Figure 2 appears to
present conventional one way directionality from the directory
entity 80, which the examiner considers to be a folder, to
respective subdirectories and eventually to respective files and
documents as the arrows depict in Figure 2. Because of what we
characterize as the bidirectional linking or relationship or
“references” of the actual data in the respectively claimed files
and folders, there appears to be only the conventional teaching
approach in Mangosoft of the relationship of a
directory/subdirectory/folder to respective files or documents
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007