Appeal No. 2002-0068 Page 8
Application No. 09/102,038
The examiner asserts, "(HTML 4) discloses receiving control information and
switching the browser accordingly upon a control event (here, a mouse click) in the last
line of page 32, the first line of page 33, and Figures 3.5 and 3.6 on pages 33 and 34,
respectively (wherein said figures illustrate the result of the switching of the browser)."
(Examiner's Answer at 3.) The appellants argue, "[t]he [HTML 4] reference does not
teach the step of receiving control information from a browser, as the claim requires;
and . . . does not teach that the control information is derived from the execution of an
applet in the first HTML file. . . ." (Reply Br. at 2.)
Claim 5 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "receiving control
information from the browser, the control information derived from execution of an
applet in the first HTML file and comprising data relating a file name for the second
HTML file with a command to show the second HTML file. . . ." Giving the claim its
broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require receiving control information
from a browser wherein the control information is derived from execution of an applet in
a first HTML page and relates a file name for a second HTML file with a command to
show the second HTML file.
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claims to
the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates those claims." In re Cruciferous
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007