Appeal No. 2006-3134
Application No. 10/157,603
The Examiner maintains that the content harvest and conversion platform provides
processing instructions for the syndication server which transforms or reformats the
electronic document (Answer 4, ll. 14-15). The Examiner maintains that the content
harvest and conversion platform uses templates to harvest content from disparate content
sources on multiple platforms. (Answer 4, l. 22- 5, l. 2). Here, the Examiner is
correlating the disparate sources as to the device where the electronic document is
received from. The Examiner does not give a specific correlation of the element in
Sahota that meets the claimed first limitation.
Next, the Examiner maintains that the syndication server transforms or reformats the
electronic document using processing instructions from the content harvest and
conversion platform (Answer 5, ll. 15-16). This means that the content harvest and
conversion platform must be the device from which the content is provided to meet the
claim limitations. Next the Examiner discusses that content engine as generating code
and instructions to exploit platforms and devices (Answer 5-6 and 22).
Next, the Examiner maintains that the content engine dynamically composes content
for the syndication server (Answer 5-6) which implies that the same device receives the
content generates the instruction and reformats the content. Therefore, the instructions
are not received, but they are arguably associated with the electronic document.
The Examiner then maintains that the syndication server transforms an HTML web
page into an XML file or document as the step of providing the reformatted document to
a destination device. There is no “providing” in the Examiner’s correlation step, but now
the Examiner indicates that the syndication server does the reformatting.
We find the Examiner’s correlation of elements in Sahota to the claim limitations
and the responsive arguments to be confusing, and we cannot find that the Examiner has
met the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation. We note that we
are not finding that Sahota CANNOT be used to establish a prima facie case of
anticipation (or obviousness), but that the Examiner has not set forth prima facie case of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007