Ex Parte McBrearty et al - Page 7

             Appeal 2007-0731                                                                                   
             Application 09/899,454                                                                             

        1    contrary to Appellants’ arguments, we find ample evidence to support the                           
        2    Examiner’s finding that the combination of Ryan and Pitkow teach the claimed                       
        3    invention, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 13,                    
        4    and 25.                                                                                            
        5          Appellants provide a separate argument directed to dependent claims 3                        
        6    through 6, 15 through 18, and 27 through 30.  In this argument Appellants concede                  
        7    that Ryan teaches the various techniques for determining activity for web sites and                
        8    argue that Ryan does not teach applying these techniques to bookmarks (Br. 8).  As                 
        9    discussed above we find ample evidence to suggest applying Ryan’s methods of                       
        10   tracking popularity of a web site into bookmarks.  Thus, Appellants’ arguments                     
        11   have not convinced us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 through 6,                  
        12   15 through 18, and 27 through 30.  Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s                          
        13   rejection of claims 3 through 6, 15 through 18, and 27 through 30.                                 
        14         Appellants provide a separate argument directed to dependent claims 9                        
        15   through 12, 21 through 24, and 33 through 36.  In these arguments Appellants                       
        16   assert that the claims are directed to web browsers associated with reviewing                      
        17   stations whereas Ryan is concerned with search engines which typically perform a                   
        18   different function.  As such Appellants reason that Ryan is inapplicable to the                    
        19   claimed invention.  (Br. 9).  As discussed above Pitkow teaches a system of                        
        20   managing bookmarks that can be on the users’ local machine, which is used in                       
        21   conjunction with a web browser.  Further, as discussed above we find ample                         
        22   evidence to suggest applying Ryan’s methods of tracking popularity of a web site                   
        23   into bookmarks.  Thus, Appellants’ arguments have not convinced us of error in                     
        24   the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 through 12, 21 through 24, and 33 through 36.                 
        25   Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 through 12, 21                        
        26   through 24, and 33 through 36.                                                                     

                                                       7                                                        


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013