Appeal No. 2006-2975
Application No. 09/794,742
in the event that a title tag was not found in the parsed HTML
document.
In consequence, we find error in the examiner’s stated
position, which concludes that the combination of Roberts and
Nielsen teaches the claimed limitation of linking an attribute
value to a title tag pertaining to a corresponding page if the
attribute value is not associated with a link text string.
It is therefore our view, after consideration of the
record before us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would not have suggested to the
ordinarily skilled artisan the invention as set forth in claims
1, 2, 5 through 7, 9, 10, 13 through 15, 17 through 19, 22
through 24 and 26 through 31. Accordingly, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 through 7,
9, 10, 13 through 15, 17 through 19, 22 through 24 and 26 through
31.
II. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Is the Rejection of Claims 3, 4, 8, 11,
12, 16, 20, 21 and 25 as being unpatentable over various
combinations of Roberts, Nielsen, Kaghazian, Giangarra and
Adapathya the combination Proper?
With respect to dependent claims 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 16, 20, 21
and 25, Appellants argue in the Briefs that the combination of
Roberts and Nielsen does not teach or suggest the limitation of
linking an attribute value to a title tag pertaining to a
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007