Appeal No. 2000-0962
Application 08/885,801
how the connection in Fitzpatrick meets the language of claim 14
[answer, pages 9-10]. We agree with the examiner for reasons
stated in the answer. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claim 14.
With respect to claim 15, appellant argues that
Fitzpatrick does not teach deriving a second image from the first
image or storing the second image [brief, page 8]. The examiner
responds by explaining how the language of claim 15 reads on the
disclosure of Fitzpatrick [answer, pages 10-11]. We agree with
the examiner as explained in the answer. Therefore, we sustain
the rejection of claim 15.
With respect to claims 18-22, appellant makes arguments
that were considered above with respect to previously considered
claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 18-22 for
reasons discussed above.
Appellant has requested that we make a recommendation
under 37 CFR § 1.196(c) that claims 1, 12, 17 and 20 would be
allowable if amended by inserting the phrase “arbitrarily long”
before the first occurrence of “network address” in each of these
claims [brief, page 9]. We decline to make such a recommendation
because the factual findings relevant to such a recommendation
are not present on this record.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007