Appeal No. 2002-0648
Application 09/090,698
indication in the combination of teachings and suggestions among
both references that the browser associated with either patent
maintains or searches for any of these or any other error
messages among a list of "user-selected list of error messages"
as required at the end of each of these independent claims on
appeal. As such, the decision of the examiner rejecting
independent claims 6, 18 and 30 is reversed.
On the other hand, we sustain the rejection of each other
independent claim on appeal for the reasons set forth by the
examiner in the answer. We are unpersuaded by the arguments
presented at pages 10 and 11 of the brief as to independent
claims 8, 20 and 32 which contains corresponding limitations in
method, apparatus and program product form. These claims
essentially require the sending of a second address as a text
search term to a user-selected search engine at a second server
and then correspondingly receiving each of the respective
results.
We are persuaded of the obviousness of each of these
independent claims 8, 20 and 32 on appeal based on the reasoning
provided by the examiner at pages 9-11 of the answer. The
examiner perceives the principal argument of appellant at page
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007