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