Appeal 2007-1979
Application 10/041,141
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Jeffries US 6,094,529 Jul. 25, 2000
Upton US 2003/0105884 A1 Jun. 5, 2003
(effectively filed Oct. 18, 2001)
Hartman US 6,615,226 B1 Sept. 2, 2003
(filed Sept. 12, 1997)
Homer, “Instant HTML,” HTML 4.0 Edition, 1997, pages 88-101.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5 to 7, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Upton, Jeffries, and Homer. The
Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Upton, Jeffries, Homer and Hartman.
The Examiner noted that “Upton claims priority filing date for U.S.
Provisional Applications 60/347,919 and 60/347,901,” and that “[t]he
60/347,901 provisional application properly supports the subject matter
relied upon by the Examiner to make the rejection of claims 1-2, 5-7 and 10
(See 60/347,901; pages 8-3 to 8-9)” (Final Rejection 7).
Appellants contend that “[t]he Examiner’s reference to ‘pages 8-3 to
8-9’ of the ‘901 provisional application, however, still does not meet the
requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c), which requires that ‘the particular part
relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable” (Br. 4). According to
Appellants, “merely citing seven whole pages to disclose multiple claimed
elements does not designate ‘as nearly as practicable,’ the particular features
within the ‘901 provisional application being relied upon by the Examiner in
the rejection” (Br. 5).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013