Appeal No. 2002-0068 Page 7
Application No. 09/102,038
the history log database 24 according to the present invention." Col. 4, ll. 30-31. More
specifically, "[i]n the database 24 . . . each row of the table typically includes a name or
title for the web page 26, an HTTP URL 28 for the web page, and a counter 30 that is
incremented every time the web page is accessed." Id. at ll. 33-37.
We are unpersuaded that a combination of Oliver's teaching of an HTML
document for embedding the Marquee applet, Holzner's teaching of navigating a Web
browser to a URL, and Peercy's teaching of history log database would have suggested
using control information derived from execution of an applet in a first HTML page to
generate a map relating a second HTML file with a command to show a second HTML
page. Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 1; of claim 2, which
depends therefrom; of claim 7; of claims 8 and 10, which depends therefrom; of
claim 11; of claim 12, which depends therefrom; of claim 15; and of claim 16, which
depends therefrom.
The examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of Glaser cures
the aforementioned deficiency of Oliver, Holzner, and Peercy. Therefore, we also
reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 3, 4, 9, 13, and 14.
Claims 5 and 6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007