Appeal No. 2006-2106
Application No. 09/837,632
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is made to the brief
(filed October 12, 2005) and the answer (mailed February 9, 2006) for the respective
positions of Appellants and the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by
Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been considered (37 CFR §
41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
OPINION
In rejecting the claims, the Examiner relies on Miksovsky for teaching the claimed
steps of searching for a predetermined error number, retrieving a message
corresponding to that number and applying the error message to a text based format
and on Hind for disclosing a method for applying an input message document to a style
sheet to create a form for display (answer, page 4). Based on the teachings of these
two prior art references, the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007