Appeal No. 2002-1517
Application No. 08/927,660
With respect to independent claims 12, 19, and 23, we find similar limitations
concerning the parsing and altering being performed at the client as with independent
claim 1. Since we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of independent claims 12, 19, and 23, we cannot sustain the rejection of
independent claims 12, 19, and 23 and their dependent claims. Furthermore, we agree
with appellant that the teachings of Brown do not remedy the deficiency in Mighdoll.
With respect to independent claims 25, 28, and 31, we agree with appellant that
the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed
invention with respect to the functionality being performed at the client with a browser
rather than at an intermediary as discussed above. Since we find that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness of independent claims 25, 28, and
31, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 25, 28, and 31 and their
dependent claims.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007