Appeal No. 2000-0962
Application 08/885,801
In addition to the responses discussed above, the examiner
responds that appellant is improperly attacking the references
individually [answer, pages 16-18].
We agree with the position argued by the examiner. When
video images include URL addresses, the apparatus of Fitzpatrick
will automatically read this information as noted above. We
agree with the examiner that the artisan would have been
motivated to look for URL addresses for reasons taught by Hidary.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 5, 9-11 and 26.
In summary, we have sustained each of the examiner’s
rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 2-5, 8-11, 13-15, 18-22 and 26 is
affirmed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007