Appeal 2007-1340
Application 09/996,125
Because Appellants have not argued any of the claims separately, all of the
claims stand or fall with claim 1.
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). That is, given the
teachings of the prior art, have Appellants shown that the differences
between the claims and the prior art are sufficient to render the claimed
subject matter unobvious to a person skilled in the art at the time the
invention was made?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Acharya
1. Acharya describes a method for providing a user-selectable version of
a file with information content in response to user selection of a
hyperlink to that information content. (Abstract.) Acharya teaches
that a user typically accesses files stored on the Web using a Web
browser, and that "[a] user's selection of a hyperlink acts as a user's
request for transmission of the file associated with the hyperlink to the
[user's] client." (Col. 2, ll. 9-20.) In Acharya, the user controls which
version of the file is provided. For example, "[a] high resolution
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013