Appeal No. 2000-0962
Application 08/885,801
in Fitzpatrick constitutes a parsing of the text or data to
identify one or more network addresses [answer, page 7].
This argument appears to hinge on the definition of
parsing. We agree with the examiner that the step of reading
text and numbers in Fitzpatrick constitutes a parsing of the
items of data to identify one or more network addresses.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 4.
With respect to claim 8, appellant argues that
Fitzpatrick teaches to store a single frame when a user issues a
command and not more than one sequential frame [brief, page 7].
The examiner responds by explaining how sequential frames are
disclosed by Fitzpatrick [answer, page 8]. We agree with the
examiner for reasons explained by the examiner in the answer.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 8.
With respect to claim 13, appellant makes the same
argument we considered above with respect to claim 2. Therefore,
we sustain the rejection of claim 13 for the same reasons
discussed above.
With respect to claim 14, appellant argues that
Fitzpatrick does not teach or suggest that the apparatus
downloads, uses or otherwise accesses the information at the
other site [brief, page 8]. The examiner responds by explaining
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007