Appeal No. 2001-2542
Application No. 09/000,760
expanding the functionality of Radziewicz’s module to include
document retrieval and display capabilities [brief, pages 5-8].
The examiner responds by essentially repeating the
rejection [answer, pages 7-8]. Appellants respond that the
examiner’s purported motivation to combine the prior art is
unsupportable because the network communications marketing system
of Radziewicz already served the purpose that the examiner
contends would be served by incorporating the features of
Hashimoto. Appellants also argue that Radziewicz does not teach
downloading a code module executing on the client device to
retrieve dynamic content to be presented to a user as asserted by
the examiner, but only allows the browser to include a window for
displaying advertisements [reply brief].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of the
claims on appeal. We agree with appellants’ arguments that the
manner and motivation in which the examiner proposes to combine
the teachings of Radziewicz and Hashimoto does not make sense
and, therefore, would not have been suggested to the artisan.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007