Appeal No. 2001-1205
Application No. 08/729,362
rather than an URL “in order to provide a user with the ability to directly communicate
with an expert capable of viewing the same screen as the user, thus providing a more
efficient and time saving help system” [Paper No. 14-page 4].
For their part, appellants argue that it is improper to take the web page help
system of Bateman and incorporate it into the stand alone help application program of
Dudzik in order to arrive at the instant claimed subject matter. In particular, appellants
argue that claim 1 requires the collection of information at the first computer and that
collected information be “associated” with the application program being run.
Appellants point out that Bateman, upon which the examiner relies for this limitation,
collects information regarding the user and the web page being viewed by a browser
application, not an application running on the computer.
Appellants further argue that neither of the applied references establishes a
communication link between the user’s computer and the expert’s computer, as
required by claim 1. Rather, explain appellants, Bateman sends an e-mail of a web
page identifier to the second computer while a separate voice line or channel, which is
not between the computers, is established.
The examiner’s response is that it was recognized that Bateman does not
disclose the step of collecting information associated with an application program but
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007