Appeal 2007-0589
Application 09/852,959
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. INTRODUCTION
1. Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 12, 13, 20, and 26 entered June 29, 2005. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
2. The Examiner has rejected claims 12, 13, 20, and 26 under
35 U.S.C. §103(a).
3. Claims 1-11, 14-19 and 21-25 are canceled.
B. ISSUE(S)
Whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12, 13, 20, and 26
based on obviousness.
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact are believed to be supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
INVENTION
1. Appellants invented a method, system, and a medium for building
web pages. (Specification 1: 10-11).
2. More particularly, the method and system only builds requested
web pages in the human language in which they were requested.
(Specification 1: 11-13).
3. When a user generates a request to view an HTML or web page, as
shown in block 403 (Figure 4), the system determines whether the page
exists statically (has already been built and stored) in the human language
that it was requested in, as depicted in block 405. If the page exists then the
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013