Appeal No. 2001-1529
Application No. 08/696,627
17) and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 19) for appellant’s position with respect to the claims
which stand rejected.
OPINION
Appellant asserts that Judson cannot teach “maintaining the graphical user
interface interactive while awaiting the reply,” as set forth in claim 1, because “a user
passively views the messages displayed by the script and can do nothing while the
request is pending.” (Brief at 14.) The examiner, however, appears to disregard the
normal meaning of “interactive.” Judson is deemed by the examiner to disclose “the
inventive concept of displaying useful information to the viewer during the link process.”
(Answer at 5.)
However, neither appellant nor the examiner appears to address Judson’s
teaching that, during download of a hypertext document, the browser may display one
or more messages that may include “fill-in forms.” See col. 1, ll. 64-67; col. 2, ll. 42-49.
The reference, in fact, uses the word “interactive” in describing use of the “fill-in” forms.
Col. 7, ll. 18-25.
In any event, appellant also argues that Judson neither shows nor suggests
suspension of a script during a server request. (Brief at 12.) The examiner responds
(Answer at 5), “what is actually recited in independent claims 1, 4, 7 and 10 are
‘maintaining the interactive GUI while the interpreter the [sic] is suspended allows the
operator to alter the command performed’.”
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007