Appeal 2006-3362
Application 09/838,365
facie case for the rejection of all claims. (Answer 3 - 8). In response,
Appellants have presented a number of arguments in opposition to that
rejection.
Appellants’ first argument is summarized on page 13 of the Brief. In
speaking of the Scott reference, Appellants state, “There is simply no
teaching of providing references to a plurality of alternate images within the
same electronic document as the initial image, as expressly recited in Claim
1. Nor do the teachings of the cited Blumberg reference overcome this
teaching deficiency.” Based on our reading of the references described
above (FF 1, 3), we find that in both Scott and Blumberg the smaller
thumbnail image is replaced on the displayed document by the larger sized
and higher resolution image of the same subject matter. Appellants further
contend that the electronic document is not reformatted as claimed in the
references (Brief 14, middle). For the reasons stated by the Examiner, page
9 middle, the document with the enlarged image embedded is necessarily
reformatted, as the word is commonly accepted. The appearance of the
document is changed in both references, Scott and Blumberg. (Also see FF
1, 3).
With respect to claim 4, Appellants contend that the Blumberg
reference has no teaching of an HTML image tag having an alternate image
attribute specifying the alternate image. (Brief 15, middle). We have
carefully studied Blumberg, and agree with the Examiner (Answer 10, all)
that the referencing of an unique JPEG image to be placed in an HTML
document at a certain point renders claim 4 obvious over the teaching.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013