Appeal No. 2006-2367
Application No. 09/783,608
retrieving the rendering instructions based at least in part on one or more
the concept identifiers; and
rendering the data on the user device, using the rendering instructions.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Hu et al. (Hu) 5,748,188 May 5, 1998
Lee et al. (Lee), "RFC 1866 Hypertext Markup Language 2.0", Network
Working Group, pp.39-45, November 1995.
Claims 1, 5-11, and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Hu.
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hu in view of Lee.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that the four corners
of a single prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention,
either expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could
practice the invention without undue experimentation. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007