Appeal 2007-0914
Application 09/904,734
Regarding the rejection of independent claim 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Veditz and Watanabe, Appellants argue
that Veditz and Watanabe fail to disclose a computer program configured to
“determine if a request header composed according to a network
communications protocol received with a client request from the at least one
client computer designates a character set; and if the request header does not
designate the character set: (i) retrieve locale information from the client
request” (Br. 14-15). The Examiner points to the rejection of claim 1
(Answer, 6), which primarily relies on col. 3 of Veditz (Answer, 4-5).
We direct attention to Appellants' Specification, which appears to
admit that all features of claim 12 were known in the art at the time the
invention was made. Appellants admit that the HTTP specification contains
an optional header that may contain character set information (Specification,
¶8). While the use of this header by a client is optional, a fully compliant
HTTP server receiving an HTTP request must still determine if a request
header (the Content-Type header) composed according to a network
communications protocol (HTTP) received with a client request from the at
least one client computer designates a character set. Appellants further
admit that it is known to select a character set when the Content-Type header
fails to specify a character set (Specification, ¶9). Appellants also admit
that, upon determining that the client request does not designate a character
set, a well known API, developed by Sun Microsystems, may be invoked to
retrieve locale information from the client request in order to determine an
associated character set (Specification, ¶35). In the context of these
admissions, it is implicit to translate server locales to a character set,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013