Appeal No. 2006-1785 Page 25
Application No. 10/768,827
the teachings of Ryzl and McLain with the teachings of Flynn because
verifying an XML file provides applications with advance notice of what
names and structures can be used in a particular document type and allows
for the certainty that documents of a particular type will be constructed and
named in a consistent manner [answer, page 13]. In particular, we note
that this motivation is taken directly from the Flynn reference at page 14,
śC.11. Accordingly, we find that the examiner has provided a proper
teaching or suggestion found within the prior art that would reasonably
motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references in the
manner suggested by the examiner.
As per dependent claims 9 and 12
Appellants argue that dependent claims 9 and 12 are patentable over
Ryzl in view of McLain, and further in view of Flynn, for at least the same
reasons that claim 1 is patentable over Ryzl in view of McLain [brief, page
45]. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims for
the same reasons we sustained the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being
unpatentable over Ryzl in view of McLain, as discussed supra.
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007