Appeal 2007-1867
Application 09/864,113
1 PRIOR ART
2 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
3 Tang US 6,349,327 B1 Feb. 19, 20023
4 Kenney US 6,381,583 B1 Apr. 30, 20024
5 Surfing, Daily Herald, Arlington Heights, Ill., p. 1, Dec. 6, 1999 (Surfing)5
6 Odigo.com, Web Site Pages, 16 pages (numbered 4-19), May 10, 2000 (Odigo
7 Web Pages)
8
9 REJECTIONS
10 Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 12, 13, 17-19, 21, 22, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35
11 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Odigo.com as evidenced by Surfing and
12 Odigo.com web pages1.
13 Claims 2, 5, 6, 11, 14, 15, 20, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
14 103(a) as unpatentable over Odigo.com and Tang.
15 Claims 7, 16, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
16 over Odigo and Kenney.
17
1 The Examiner presents two essentially duplicate rejections, both for the same
claims, over the same art, i.e., Odigo.com (Answer 7-8), and we consolidate them
for purposes of this appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013