Appeal No. 2000-0962
Application 08/885,801
9-11]. The examiner responds that Fitzpatrick teaches using data
such as a telephone number, address, or other textual or
numerical information. Hidary is cited to teach that it was
known to search for URL addresses in a video signal. We agree
with the examiner that it would have been obvious to the artisan
to extend the teachings of Fitzpatrick to identify URL addresses
transmitted as part of the image. We also note that Fitzpatrick
searches for any text or numbers in the video image. Thus,
Fitzpatrick would already detect the presence of URL addresses
which are included within a video image.
With respect to claim 3, appellant argues that neither
Fitzpatrick nor Hidary performs the validity check as recited in
claim 3 [brief, page 11]. The examiner responds that the
checking of the spelling of a network address in Hidary broadly
constitutes a step of checking the validity of the network
address. We agree with the examiner that the invention as
broadly recited in claim 3 would have been obvious over the
teachings of Fitzpatrick and Hidary. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claim 3.
With respect to claims 5, 9-11 and 26, appellant argues
features which were discussed above and that Hidary does not
teach URL addresses taken from the image [brief, pages 11-12].
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007