Appeal No. 2002-0648
Application 09/090,698
We are unpersuaded by appellant's arguments at pages 11-12
of the brief as to the patentability of these claims based upon
the combination of teachings and suggestions of Earl and Nielsen.
Initially, we do not agree with appellant's assertion at the top
of page 12 of the brief that Earl and Nielsen do not disclose or
suggest user selection of common address components. Clearly,
this is a misplaced argument since all address components in
any manual entry or otherwise in the browsers of both references
is clearly user selectable. These would necessarily include so-
called common address components as well.
Significantly, we note that Earl's teaching of removing the
most specific portion of the previously determined invalid
resource identifier or address to create a modified resource
identifier and to do so successively until a valid one has been
reached, necessarily includes the removal of common or possibly
any type of addressable component. Appellant's arguments at page
12 recognize this implicitly. By arguing that certain known
common address-components "are often not the most specific
portion" is an unpersuasive argument since it implicitly includes
the admittance that sometimes such common address components are
the most specific portion. The examiner's reasoning at pages 11
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007