Appeal No. 2006-1790
Application No. 10/042,030
Appellants argue that while the prior art ignores particular attributes of a
document for all documents presented by the browser, the instant invention permits only
the received document to be modified.
Again, for the reasons supra, with regard to claim 1, we find that appellants’
interpretation is too limiting and that even though the prior art would require the user to
change the settings for all documents subsequently received, the changed setting will
certainly cause the document of interest to be modified in accordance with the user’s
preferences the next time that document is received and this is not seen to be
precluded by the instant claim language.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Since we have sustained all of the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-11, and 22-25
under 35 U.S.C. §103, the examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007