Appeal No. 2005-0074
Application No. 09/739,080
further noted by the examiner (Answer, page 8), the personal
computer 104 disclosed by Provost can communicate, view and/or
access data over the network (from host data processor 102; see
col. 5, ll. 45-49), and thus falls within the scope of the
claimed “web client.”
With regard to the rejection of claim 49, appellants argue
that the remotely located host data processor 102 is not formed
as a component of an ID card personalization device as recited in
claim 49 (Brief, page 13). This argument is not persuasive
since, as noted by the examiner (Answer, page 8), the host
computer disclosed by Provost may be considered as a web server.
The host data processor communicates with the personal computer
104 (web client)(see col. 5, ll. 29-31). See the specification,
pages 11 and 12, where a “web server” allows the web clients to
remotely access data (page 12) or serves information or data
using Internet protocols to networked devices that include a web
client (page 11). Giving the broadest reasonable interpretation
to “web server” consistent with the specification, we agree with
the examiner that Provost describes a host data processor that
functions as a web server within the scope of claim 49. See In
re Graves, supra.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007