Appeal 2007-1651
Application 09/791,152
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9 through 13, 15 through 18, 22, and 24 through 31
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over King.
The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 3 through 8 of the Answer.
Claims 3 through 5, 7, 14, 19 through 21, and 23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over King in view of Bright. The
Examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 8 through 10 of the Answer.
Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Brief (received
September 13, 2006), and the Answer (mailed December 6, 2006) for the
respective details thereof.
ISSUES
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9
through 13, 15 through 18, 22, and 24 through 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
is in error. Appellants assert that:
While King may determine if the contents do not fit on the page, King
does not teach or suggest responsive to a determination that the page
falls outside of the proximity policy, reformatting the page to fall
within the proximity policy, to form a reformatted page, wherein the
proximity policy defines a minimal spacing between respective
links within the page.
Brief, p. 14 (emphasis original).
The Examiner responds, on page 12 of the Answer, stating “King
discloses a content scale factor that is initialized that is indicative of a
portion of the content rendering spacing occupied by content elements (col
2, lines 67- col 3, line 5). King's 'scale factor' is a white space scale factor
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013