Appeal No. 2002-2182
Application No. 09/223,565
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 2, we sustain this rejection
as well. The language of claim 2 adds a “fourth display portion”
to the previously recited first, second, and third display portions
set forth in claim 1. We find the same difficulty in locating any
correspondence in Appellants’ disclosure that would provide any
guidance as to the proper interpretation for the recited “fourth
display portion,” as we did in interpreting the previously
discussed first, second, and third display portions. Accordingly,
we simply find no error, and Appellants have provided no arguments
to the contrary, in the Examiner’s interpretation (Answer, page 6)
of the illustration in Figure 10.1 and the accompanying description
in Lemay, directed to a web server/client environment, as
corresponding to the claimed “fourth display portion” for scripting
objects for a server or client. It is our view, therefore, that
all of the elements of claim 2 are in fact present in the
disclosure of Lemay. A disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 also renders the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
for "anticipation is the epitome of obviousness." Jones v. Hardy,
2(...continued)
however, with regard to claim 13 reiterate the arguments made with respect to
claim 1, i.e. the alleged lack of server/client relationships in Lemay, an
argument which we found unpersuasive as discussed supra.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007