Appeal 2007-1440
Application 09/920,481
an inquiry-response transaction is initiated” as claimed (emphasis added).
Appellant emphasizes that skilled artisans would necessarily construe the
term “email” as entirely incongruent with the term “hyperlink.” In support
of this argument, Appellant argues that email messages are distinct from
HTTP request messages in view of, among other things, their different
protocols. Appellant also contends that, unlike email messages, HTTP
request messages are composed by the user’s browser client software
responsive to certain user actions (Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 5-6).
The Examiner argues that Gifford’s statement in column 7 regarding
implementing an “electronic mail order system” at least suggests using email
(Answer 11-12). The Examiner further contends that since Appellant did
not ascribe a special meaning to the term “email,” it is interpreted with its
plain meaning. As such, the plain meaning of “email” does not preclude an
HTTP request (Answer 12-13).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1.
In Gifford’s network sales system, a buyer views an overview screen that is
retrieved from a merchant computer. The screen includes links 1, 2, and 3
that, when activated, cause the buyer’s computer to take specified actions.
As shown in Fig. 3, a document is retrieved with links 5, 6, and 7 that are
used to purchase the products described by corresponding advertisements.
(Gifford, col. 5, ll. 7-47; Figs. 2-5).
As shown in Fig. 6 of Gifford, when the user activates link 1, an
HTTP request 20 results for a specific document with a specified URL. The
merchant computer then retrieves the document and returns it to the buyer
computer (Gifford, col. 5, ll. 49-59).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013