Appeal No. 2006-2106
Application No. 09/837,632
Hind, on the other hand relates to tailoring document content
for its target context using a style sheet that provides a
transformation scheme suitable for that context (col. 7, lines
51-64). As pointed out by the Examiner (answer, page 5), Hind
further describes style sheets that may extract a subset of the
information from a document or transform the document such that
it can be delivered to a particular device (col. 8, lines 37-51).
Hind also explains that the term “document” may refer to diverse
types of information (col. 8, lines 51-57).
Based on our findings above, and contrary to Appellants’
argument (brief, page 6) related to Hind’s lack of suggestion for
applying an “error message” to a style sheet, we find that Hind
provides sufficient suggestion for applying any type of
information, such as error messages, to the style sheet. In
fact, in this case, the reason for the modification stems not
only from the benefits of applying different types of information
to a style sheet in Hind, but also from Miksovsky’s recognition
of the need for updated error messages. In view of the analysis
above, we find the Examiner’s reliance on the combination of
Miksovsky and Hind to be reasonable and sufficient to support a
prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claim 1 over Miksovsky and Hind is sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007