Appeal No. 2006-1790
Application No. 10/042,030
the document based on the set of user preferences, rather than applying preferences
for all documents.
We have reviewed the evidence before us, including, inter alia, the arguments of
appellants and the examiner and we conclude therefrom that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness that has not been successfully rebutted
by appellants.
While we understand the differences between appellants’ disclosed invention and
that disclosed by APA and IE, we do not find that the instant invention, as claimed
distinguishes over the applied prior art. We understand that IE allows a user to change
the defaults of attributes, such as fonts and colors, of downloaded web documents,
whereas appellants’ invention allows the user to change, or clarify, a specific document,
after it is received and displayed. However, consider the operation of IE vis a vis the
instant claim language, e.g., claim 1:
When a document is received in IE, it includes a document component having an
attribute (e.g., background color). This attribute is “explicitly specified in the document
because the user viewing the document can see that attribute. Once downloaded, or
received, the document in IE is displayed. Now, in IE, the user has no clarification
controls on the specific displayed document. However, the user can go to “Tools-
Internet Options,” etc, as noted by the examiner, and change the default settings so that
the next time that particular document is downloaded, or received, it will, indeed, have
the new attributes set by the user. Thus, in IE, after the document is displayed, the user
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007