Appeal No. 2002-0648
Application 09/090,698
feature is not taught or suggested among the teachings and
suggestions of Earl and Nielsen nor are the arguments presented
by the examiner as to their unpatentability persuasive.
The appellant's arguments are persuasive at pages 8-10 of
the brief as to these claims essentially arguing that Earl and
Nielsen fail to disclose or suggest searching for the message in
a user-selective list of error messages. As noted at pages 8 and
9 of the brief, Nielsen's list of candidate URLs cannot be read
on the present invention's feature of a user-selected list of
error messages because the list of candidate URLs does not
comprise a list of error messages. Basically, a list of URLs is
not an error message in any form. The examiner's argument at
page 9 of the answer that a user-selected list of error messages
would read on any list that contains network addresses that can
initiate error messages is not well-taken in the art.
Earl teaches at the top of column 8 the beginning discussion
of error messages indicating a status code of 404 which indicates
a file not found. Additionally, the top of column 6 begins a
discussion in Nielsen of corresponding error messages received at
a client from a server indicating that the server is not found
and that the document requested is not found. There is no
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007