Appeal No. 2004-1201
Application No. 09/051,118
We take as a representative claim, claim 75, because the rejection of
this independent claim relies only upon Dolan in view of Kogan and this
claim also represents most simply the two basic deficiencies in this
combination. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that these two
references are properly combined with 35 U.S.C. § 103, the deficiencies in
this combination of references are fatal to the rejection of each
independent claim on appeal. This is true initially because each respective
claim on appeal in some manner recites the assignment to each or all of a
plurality of links a respective different identifier and, secondly, displaying in
some manner these identifiers. For example, in claim 25 the display
function is recited in terms of the respective identifiers being “presented to
the user for selection thereof.” In claim 36 there is recited a “means for
assigning, …, a respective different identifier for presentation to a user”
with a separate recitation that these respective identifiers are “presented
to the user” so that the user by means of an input means may input one of
the respective identifiers.
The examiner’s position as to the combination of Dolan and Kogan
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007