Appeal No. 2002-0097
Application No. 09141,088
servers thereby avoiding a bottleneck at the server computer”
(answer-pages 4-5).
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or of claims
2-5, 7-9 and 11, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because we agree with
appellants that the examiner’s rejection is faulty on at least
two counts.
First, the alleged combination is suspect in that since
Scherpbier uses a control site to modify a page before it is sent
to a second computer and Anupam provides participants, other than
the “leader,” in a collaborative session with a URL so that all
participants can view a particular page, it appears unlikely that
the skilled artisan would have sought to modify Scherpbier’s
limited viewing system with Anupam’s universal distribution of
the URL so that all may view without modification of the
corresponding document.
Second, even if such a combination were to be made by the
artisan, it does not appear that the claimed subject matter would
result. The collaborator in Scherpbier is not viewing a website
corresponding to a URL, but rather a modified version of the
corresponding document. Anupam, on the other hand, provides an
actual copy of the URL to each participant. Thus, in Scherpbier,
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007