Appeal No. 2001-0677
Application No. 08/974,575
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify a Web page and insert a print
button. (See brief at page 8.) We agree with appellant.
Appellant also argues that the examiner has pointed to no teaching, suggestion
or incentive for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify these references in a
manner necessary to reach the presently claimed invention. (See brief at page 9.) We
agree with appellant and find that even if the references were combined, the examiner
has pointed to no teaching, suggestion or incentive for one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify these references in a manner necessary to reach the presently claimed
invention. Therefore, we find that appellant has adequately rebutted and shown error in
the examiner’s presentation of a prima facie case of obviousness, and we cannot
sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims. Independent
claims 14, 27, and 34 contain similar limitations; therefore, we cannot sustain the
rejection thereof along with their respective dependent claims.
With respect to independent claim 47, we note that the examiner relies upon the
same rationale as used with respect to independent claim 1. Here, we note that the
language of claim 47 is broader than claim 1 in that “network services” are recited
rather than printing. Therefore, we do not find appellant’s arguments to the presence of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007