Ex Parte Bibliowicz et al - Page 6

              Appeal 2007-0437                                                                       
              Application 09/982,224                                                                 
              may include any type of documents including drawing and three                          
              dimensional views as well as images.  As noted by the Examiner, the                    
              teachings with respect to figure 2 at the top of column 4 of Kumar also                
              characterize the shared work spaces comprising graphical objects.  Of                  
              particular note as to the combinability issue are the teachings in the last            
              paragraph at column 4 of Kumar which indicates that its system teachings               
              may be easily built into any real time collaborations system.  This teaching           
              also brings out another major teaching of Kumar, that it is in a real-time             
              collaboration environment.  Thus, also emphasized is the heartbeat                     
              command nature of the communications between collaborators on a regular                
              basis as claimed.  We therefore do not agree with Appellants’                          
              characterization of the Brown and Kumar references at the bottom of page 5             
              of the principal Brief on appeal since the remarks here appear to play off the         
              teachings of Kumar and Brown against each other.                                       
                    We turn now to the subject matter of argued dependent claim 6 where              
              it is stated that the command comprises an extensible markup language                  
              (XML) command.  Appellants’ own Specification is written in the sense of               
              recognizing that XML was well known in the art and Appellants’ disclosed               
              invention makes use of it.  We therefore agree with the Examiner’s views at            
              the bottom of page 5 of the Answer that XML would have been an obvious                 
              choice for a network-based application of which each of the three references           
              basically teaches.  While we recognize the Examiner’s choice of term as                
              characterizing the use of this well known language as being a mere design              
              choice is misplaced, the arguments behind the Examiner’s characterization              
              have not been seasonably challenged by Appellants at page 10 of the                    
              principal Brief and at pages 5 and 6 of the Reply Brief.  The Examiner’s               

                                                 6                                                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013