Appeal No. 2001-1205
Application No. 08/729,362
Thus, even if we were to agree with the examiner that, as broadly set forth in
claim 1, there is certainly a communication link between two computers in Bateman,
based on our finding, supra, that there would have been no reason to combine the
teachings of the applied references to arrive at the instant claimed subject matter, we
still would not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. For similar reasons, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 18, 20 and 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 since independent claims 18 and 26 each also requires the
collection of information associated with the application program including an
application identifier for the application program.
We note that while one might raise the question as to whether Bateman’s
collection of information regarding a web page is the collection of information regarding
an “application program,” i.e., whether a web page presentation or the use of a web
browser is, itself, an “application program,” this issue is not before us on appeal. We
limit our discussion herein to matters before us and, to this end, we find the examiner’s
stated rationale for rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 to fall far short of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007