Appeal No. 2006-3121
Application No. 10/165,083
With respect to the independent claims, appellants first contend that the
prior art does not disclose or suggest the limitation calling for, in response to an
operation that copies an object contained in a first document to a first buffer,
requesting source information associated with the object from a first application
displaying the first document. Appellants also contend that the prior art fails to
disclose or suggest the limitation calling for, in response to pasting the object to a
second document, sending the source information to a second application
displaying the second document, wherein the second application incorporates
the source information into the second document in association with the object
[brief, page 11].
In support of these arguments, appellants first note that neither Jones nor
Burner passes source information from one application to another responsive to
a copy-and-paste operation. Although appellants acknowledge that Word has
the ability to move or copy a footnote when the corresponding reference to that
footnote is copied, the skilled artisan would not equate a footnote with “source
information” as claimed. In this regard, appellants contend that a footnote is part
of the content of the document, but source information is metadata for the
document [brief, page 11; emphasis added]. According to appellants, unlike
Word, the claimed invention (1) retrieves specific metadata (i.e., “source
information”) from a first document, and (2) incorporates that “source information”
into a second document [brief, pages 11 and 12; reply brief, page 5].
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013