Appeal No. 2006-3121
Application No. 10/165,083
actually made by appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which appellants could have made but chose not to make in the briefs have not
been considered and are deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
Regarding the independent claims, the examiner's rejection essentially
finds that Jones teaches every claimed feature except for (1) requesting source
information associated with an object from a first application in response to
copying an object in a first document to a buffer, and (2) incorporating the source
information into the second document responsive to pasting the object to the
second document. Regarding difference (1), the examiner cites Burner as
teaching requesting a web page for which metadata is displayed. The examiner
finds that, in view of Burner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to modify Jones to request a web page for
which metadata is displayed so that metadata corresponding to a web page is
displayed along with the web page. Regarding difference (2), the examiner cites
Word as teaching copying and pasting text associated with footnotes from one
document to another. The examiner finds that, in view of Word, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
include in Jones the feature of copying the footnote information from one
document and pasting into another to identify and associate metadata with its
corresponding content [answer, pages 3-7].
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013