Appeal No. 2006-1785 Page 27
Application No. 10/768,827
format stored in a definition source” as recited in claim 10 and similarly in
claims 21 and 31 [brief, page 46].
The examiner disagrees [answer, page 31]. The examiner points to
Flynn [page 23, ¶D.2] that describes XML rules for well-formed documents
and rules for validity [answer, page 31]. The examiner asserts that a valid
XML file is verified to determine whether it conforms to the format of the
Document Type Definition (DTD) and is well-formed [id.]. The examiner
notes that a valid XML file is a well-formed file that conforms with an
associated DTD [id.]. The examiner concludes that the language of claims
10, 21 and 31 reads upon the cited Flynn reference [id.].
We note that the instant claimed “definition source” clearly reads upon
an XML Document Type Definition, as disclosed by Flynn on pages 23 and
24. With respect to the claimed format verification, we note that Flynn
explicitly discloses “[t]he test for validity is that a validating parser finds no
errors in the file: it must conform absolutely to the definitions and
declarations in the DTD” [see last sentence on page 24, emphasis added].
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 21 and 31
as being unpatentable over Ryzl in view of McLain, and further in view of
Flynn, for essentially the same reasons argued by the examiner in the
answer.
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007