Appeal No. 96-2021
Application 08/004,016
Since we agree with appellant that this record does not
support the examiner’s rejection, we do not sustain the rejection
of claim 29 and claims 30, 34 and 35 which are grouped therewith.
We now consider the rejection of claim 39 as
unpatentable over the teachings of Nielsen. Claim 39 is
essentially the same as claim 29 except that data concerning a
most recent utilization of a link is displayed rather than data
of the first utilization as recited in claim 29. Although the
markers in Nielsen are more closely related to a most recent
utilization rather than a first utilization, Nielsen still does
not teach the selective display of a date and time for reasons
noted above. The invention of claim 39 also provides advantages
which are not suggested by the teachings of Nielsen. Therefore,
we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 39 and 40 based on
this record.
In summary, we have not sustained the examiner’s
rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 29, 30, 34, 35, 39 and
40 is reversed.
REVERSED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007