Appeal 2007-2021
Application 09/790,726
view of Lin would have been obvious since using an HTML file allows the
developer to specify hyperlinks that point to other information, including
media files (Answer 11-12). The Examiner adds that uploading a SMIL file
in Wiser/Lin system would also have been obvious since Balabanovic
teaches that SMIL files allow playback of synchronized audio and video
(Answer 13).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the independent claims.
We note at the outset that independent claim 23 is considerably broader than
independent claim 1. Since Appellant has argued the independent claims as
a group, we therefore select claim 23 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claim 23 merely calls for, in pertinent part, (1) uploading a SMIL file
to be associated with a corresponding HTML file, and (2) displaying the
HTML file corresponding to the SMIL file and/or other HTML files
(emphasis added). The first emphasized limitation merely indicates that the
uploaded SMIL file is intended to be associated with a corresponding HTML
file at some future time. There is simply no requirement of such an
association in this limitation.
The second limitation does recite displaying the HTML file
corresponding to the SMIL file. But due to the presence of the “and/or”
limitation, the limitation merely calls for displaying this HTML file in the
alternative. That is, the limitation recites in pertinent part “displaying the
HTML file corresponding to the SMIL file or other HTML files.”
In short, the sheer scope and breadth of claim 23 is fully met by an
electronic music distribution service that involves (1) uploading an SMIL
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013