Appeal No. 2002-0068 Page 4
Application No. 09/102,038
OPINION
Our opinion addresses the rejection of the claims in the following order:
• claims 1-4 and 7-16
• claims 5 and 6.
Claims 1-4 and 7-16
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
address the main point of contention therebetween. The examiner makes the following
assertions.
Oliver [Netscape 3] discloses the receiving of control information
from the execution of an applet in the first HTML file in the code listing
29.4 on page 566. However, Oliver [Netscape 3] does not specifically
state that the control information comprises data relating to a second
HTML file and command associated with the second HTML file (i.e., a
URL) or the generation of a map.
Holzner, however, discloses that applets can be used to access
web pages in the imap.java code listing on pages 364-365. Specifically
refer to the line:
getAppletContext().showDocument(newURL);
in which the command and control information is reflected in the value of
the newURL variable.
And Peercy discloses the executing of a script (or computer
program) on the application server using the control information to
generate a map relating the second HTML file and the command to show
the second HTML page in Figure 2 and in column 3 lines 54-63.
Oliver [Netscape 3], Holzner and Peercy are analogous art
because they are from the same field of endeavor, that is the Internet
programming art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to apply the teachings of Peercy and Holzner to
Oliver [Netscape 3], because this solved a need to expedite and clarify the
path from the web site to a given web page, as taught by Peercy in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007