Appeal No. 2006-2975
Application No. 09/794,742
corresponding page if the attribute value is not associated with
a link text string. We have already addressed this argument in
the discussion of claim 1 above, and we agree with Appellants.
Further, Appellants argues that neither Kaghazian nor Giangarra
nor Adapathya cures the deficiencies of the Roberts-Nielsen
combination. We also agree with Appellants that the cited
tertiary references fail to cure he deficiencies of the Roberts-
Nielsen combination.
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 3, 4, 8, 11,
12, 16, 20, 21 and 25. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 16, 20,
21 and 25.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have not sustained
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through 31 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, we reverse.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007