Appeal 2007-1651
Application 09/791,152
ANALYSIS
We find that the Examiner erred in finding that King teaches
reformatting the page to fall within the proximity policy wherein the
proximity policy defines a minimal spacing between respective links within
a page. Independent claim 1 recites the steps of “determining whether a
page falls within a proximity policy” and “reformatting the page to fall
within the proximity policy,” and further recites that the proximity policy
“defines a minimal spacing between respective links within the page.”
Independent claims 12, 16, 17, 28, 29, and 31 recite similar limitations.
Thus, the independent claims recite the proximity policy as defining the
spacing between links on the page. As discussed above in the statement of
the issues, the Examiner’s rejection relies upon King’s scaling factors to
meet Appellants’ claimed scaling factors. Answer, p. 4 and p. 12. In King,
the scaling factors relate to the adjustment in size of the content. Fact 4.
Further, though King discusses allocation of space to each content element
(Fact 2), we find no discussion in King as to the spacing between elements
being used to make a determination that a document needs to be reformatted.
Thus, we do not find that King teaches or makes obvious the claimed steps
of determining whether a page falls within a proximity policy and
reformatting the page to fall within the proximity policy wherein the
proximity policy defines a minimal spacing between respective links within
a page. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6,
8, 9 through 13, 15 through 18, 22, and 24 through 31.
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 3 through 5, 7, 14, 19 through
21, and 23 based upon King in view of Bright. This rejection similarly relies
upon King for teaching of the limitations of the independent claims. The
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013