Appeal No. 2002-0097
Application No. 09141,088
an actual URL is not provided to each participant, as required by
the instant claims. Since Anupam supplies an actual copy of the
URL to all participants except the manager that initiated the
session, i.e., what appellants call the “leader,” Anupam also
does not supply the URL to all of the participants, as required
by the claim.
One might argue that the claims require an URL to be
supplied to a first and second client computer and so any two of
the computers in Anupam can be these claimed “first” and “second”
client computers. But, since the instant claims require that the
URL be selected through browser software running on the “first
client computer,” it is clear that since the “leader,” or the
client computer selecting the URL, in Anupam does not, itself,
receive a copy of the message including the URL, i.e., there is
no “generating a message addressed to the at least first and
second client computers, the message including the URL of the
document to be viewed at the at least first and second
computers,” Anupam cannot supply to Scherpbier this teaching or
the teaching of an URL selected through the use of browser
software running on the first client computer, as claimed. If
the “first” client computer in Anupam is causing the generation
of the message, then the message is not addressed to the first
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007