Appeal No. 2002-1517
Application No. 08/927,660
establish a genuine issue of material fact." Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999, 50 USPQ2d
at 1617, citing McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576, 1578,
27 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, as pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope
of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d
1362,1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Therefore, we look to the
limitations set forth in independent claim 1. Appellant argues that independent claim 1
is directed to methodology for implementing a caching proxy at the client that can
control the “look and feel” of the data that is received from a Web server and
subsequently presented to a browser at a client. (See brief at page 11.) We agree with
appellant that the claims specifically require that the parsing/analysis and the altering be
performed at the client. The examiner maintains that “the client is a combination of
WebTV client 1 and WebTV service 5 that is connected to the network 3.” (See answer
at page 4.) We find the examiner’s correlation of client to be unreasonable in view of its
ordinary meaning and the clear usage in the text of Mighdoll. Mighdoll uses the same
term wherein the end user is the client and WebTV service 5 (server) is an
intermediary/proxy at a location remote from the client unit 1. We generally agree with
appellant’s arguments in the brief, but do not find appellant’s argument with respect to
the economic impact on the WebTV service for moving the parsing and/or transcoding
to the client to be persuasive regarding the technological obviousness. Additionally,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007