Appeal 2006-3143
Application 09/897,383
recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore
and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303,
313 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The Examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to
be fully met by the disclosure of Guedalia (Answer 3-7). Regarding
independent claims 25, 33, and 41, Appellants argue that Guedalia does not
disclose parsing the initial part of an image file to identify any additional
parts that may be needed to render a selection of the image file as claimed.
Rather, the server in Guedalia parses an Internet Imaging Protocol (I.I.P.)
request associated with a proprietary image file format to determine what
image files should be sent to satisfy the request. Appellants contend that
such a request is not an image file or part of an image file; therefore,
Guedalia does not parse an image file. The claimed invention, however,
parses and interprets the image file directly (Br. 4; Reply Br. 4; emphasis
added).
The Examiner argues that Guedalia’s browser analyzes an HTML
page and displays embedded images containing sub-regions that form the
overall image. This HTML page, according to the Examiner, corresponds to
the claimed “image file.” Moreover, Guedalia’s browser “parses” the initial
part of this HTML-based “image file” by analyzing the page to display the
embedded image (Answer 9).
Appellants respond that Guedalia’s parsing an HTML file to display
embedded images is not equivalent to parsing an image file to identify
additional parts that may be needed to render a selection of the image file.
First, Appellants contend that an HTML page is not an image file, but rather
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013