Appeal No. 2001-1528
Application No. 08/998,661
displayed at the user’s terminal. We find that Byrd meets the terms of the relevant
dependent claims (i.e., 9, 10, 19, 20, 29, and 30).
Dependent claim 33 requires that the objects to be displayed or executed include
“one or more of applets and an image file.” As we have previously noted, Byrd also
discloses (e.g., col. 4, ll. 33-35) that the documents may be image files, thus meeting
the terms of claim 33.
Appellant argues (Brief at 7) that Byrd does not show “network addresses,” and
thus does not anticipate claim 32. While Byrd does not disclose displaying network
addresses -- where the documents are found on the network -- to the user, the claim
does not require display to the user. The information element references in Byrd
include the title of the document that is displayed to the user. However, consistent with
instant claim 32, the information element references also include the network
addresses of the documents; else, the documents could not be retrieved upon selection
by the user.
We thus are not persuaded of error in the examiner’s finding of anticipation with
respect to any of the claims on appeal. We thus sustain the rejection of claims 1, 9-11,
19-21, and 29-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Byrd.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007