Appeal No. 2001-1057
Application No. 08/741,470
Thus, we will sustain the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e). Further,
since appellants present no separate arguments with regard to claims 17, 20, 25, 28,
33, 36, 41, 44, 49 and 52 [see brief-page 10], we also will sustain the rejection of these
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e).
Similarly, since appellants “argument” as to claims 13, 16, 29, 32, 45 and 48
[brief-page 10-11] is the same as for claim 5, we will also sustain the rejection of these
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e).
For the reasons supra, we will sustain the rejection of claims 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16,
17, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 32, 33, 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 45, 48, 49 and 52 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 (e).
With regard to the rejection of claims 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26, 27,
30, 31, 34, 35, 38, 39, 42, 43, 46, 47, 50 and 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, appellants
argue, pointing only to claims 6 and 7, that, in addition to the reasons given with respect
to claim 5, the claims are patentable over Anupam because it is not apparent from
column 4, lines 30-32, of Anupam [cited by the examiner] that the chat region is a real
time continuously open bi-directional communication region. Appellants’ rationale is
that the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (“HTTP”) server protocol of Anupam is a stateless,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007