Appeal No. 2001-0677
Application No. 08/974,575
a print functionality in the prior art to be distinguishing. With this said, we do not find
that the examiner has addressed the limitations of this claim and therefore, the
examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the applied
prior art teachings, and we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 47 along with its
respective dependent claims.
With respect to independent claims 41 and 52, appellant argues that these
claims are similar to the other claims discussed above, except that the agent that
inserts the print buttons is located at the client rather than at the proxy server, and that
the examiner has not addressed this difference. (See brief at pages 20-21.) We agree
with appellant that the examiner has not addressed this difference and has relied upon
the combination as discussed above. Therefore, we find that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to independent claims 41
and 52, and we cannot sustain the rejection thereof along with their respective
dependent claims.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007