Appeal No. 2001-1057
Application No. 08/741,470
collaborators. In response to that “request,” a second document is caused to be
received at the other collaborators’ computers (and, of course, displayed in the browser
region of the other collaborators’ computer displays), the second document being
received from a second document address through the computer network, as claimed.
It may be that it is the creator of the session in Anupam who controls the URL
addresses and the documents to be displayed, wherein appellants may intend that any
of the collaborators can perform this function, but appellants have pointed to no specific
claim language which makes any such distinction.
Since the examiner appears to have established a prima facie case of
anticipation and appellants’ argument with regard to claims 5, 21 and 37 is not
persuasive, we will sustain the rejection of claims 5, 21 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
(e). We will also sustain the rejection of claims 8, 24 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e)
since appellants’ “argument” as to these claims is merely to state that they depend from
argued claims [see page 8 of the brief]. Accordingly, claims 8, 24 and 40 will fall with
claims 5, 21 and 37.
With regard to claim 9, appellants argue that Anupam does not teach or suggest
the ability to change from one chat session to another chat session in response to a
request during such a session while claim 9 recites the receipt of a request from the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007