Appeal No. 2002-0056
Application No. 08/868,201
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nielsen in view of Winter.
Claims 2, 3, 11 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Nielsen in view of Winter and Cordell.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nielsen in view
of Winter and Freivald.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nielsen in view
of Winter and Goldman.
Claims 23, 25 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Nielsen in view of Winter and Lemay.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 16 and 18) and the answer (paper number
21) for the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 13, 16, 19 and 22 through 27.
Nielsen uses an anchor tag that enables a user to not only pull up the hot-linked document,
but also to go to a specified portion of the hot-linked document. Nielsen explains (column 3, lines
48 through 63) that:
Embodiments of the present invention use a new extension to the HTML
language to support remotely specified named anchors. A remotely specified named
anchor, when embedded within a source document, instructs a browser program to
access a portion of a destination document indicated in the remotely specified named
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007