Appeal 2007-0914
Application 09/904,734
also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims for the same reasons discussed supra with respect
to claims 1, 12 and 16.
In summary, we sustain each of the Examiner’s separately stated
rejections of claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The rejections of these
claims encompass all claims on appeal, and all rejections are affirmed.
Therefore, the decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s decision to affirm the
rejection of independent claim 12 on the ground that “Appellants’
Specification . . . appears to admit that all features of claim 12 were known
in the art at the time the invention was made.” Supra p. 5. Specifically, I
disagree with the majority’s characterization of paragraph 35 of the
Specification as “admit[ting] 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).” Supra p. 5. The only information in paragraph ¶ 35 that can be fairly
treated as admitted prior art is the description of
“ServletRequest.getLocale()” as an API that was developed by Sun
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013