Appeal No. 2007-0222
Application No. 09/726,797
information appliances 15 in this reference. Even as set forth initially in the
Abstract of Robotham, the closing paragraphs, such as beginning at the
middle of column 70 of Robotham, teach that content is rendered,
transformed or otherwise transcoded even to the point of increasing the
amount of information available in a transcoded representation and
increasing the total size and complexity of the transcoded representation.
Clearly, the artisan would have well appreciated such operations as
alterations or modifications of content to the extent recited in representative
independent claim 1 on appeal. Even though Robotham is clearly
cumulative to the teaching value of Jamtgaard, Appellants’ arguments in the
Brief do not contest the proper combinability of both references within 35
U.S.C. § 103.
As an aside, the server 22 in Figure 7 of Robotham teaches clipping,
filtering, scaling, and conversion operations of pixels which clearly relate to
content conversions or conditioning to the extent claimed. The same may be
said of the encoding and image compression capabilities of the server 22 in
Figure 9.
The position at page 7 of the Brief relating to the same data may be
displayed on a PC having the entire data displayed on a single page and a
PDA having the same data displayed on multiple pages of Robotham is
misplaced. The claim does not exclude the same data being displayed on
different devices in different manners. The claim does not require that the
data content itself from a source document be altered or otherwise modified
even though it is claimed to be only broadly “conditioned.” Conditioning
clearly includes reformatting operations in both applied references.
Moreover, we strongly believe that the artisan would have well interpreted
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013