Appeal No. 2001-1529
Application No. 08/696,627
However, instant claim 1 sets forth, inter alia, the step of “suspending the script
containing the server request until a reply is received to the server request.” We agree
with appellant (e.g., Brief at 17) that the rejection is unclear with respect to pointing out
the particular elements described by Judson that are deemed to teach the claim
limitations attributed to the reference. We consider it most likely that Judson’s browser,
or the process running within the browser (described at col. 5, l. 50 - col. 6, l. 11), is
proposed to correspond to the claimed “interpreter.” The “script” as claimed would thus
correspond to the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) code, as illustrated in Figure 7
of the reference.
We find no satisfactory response from the examiner to appellant’s position set
forth in the Brief, as developed therein and supported by reference to Judson, that the
reference fails to disclose or suggest suspending the script containing the server
request until a reply is received to the server request. Nor do we find any description of
such a process in Judson, notwithstanding the rejection relying upon the reference as
teaching the feature. In our reading of Judson’s disclosure, a script containing the
server request is not suspended until a reply is received to the server request. On the
contrary, execution of the relevant script is effectively complete at the time of a server
request, and a new script (i.e., HTML code loaded from the requested web link) is
thereafter accessed. Judson at col. 5, l. 50 - col. 6, l. 11 and Fig. 3.
Each of the remaining independent claims on appeal (4, 7, and 10) sets forth
combinations that include substantially similar limitations to those in claim 1 that we find
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007