Appeal No. 2002-2174
Application No. 09/263,166 Page 29
From our review of the record, we are in agreement with the
examiner that although Johnson does not disclose the use of the
Internet, Web pages or URLs, we agree with the examiner (answer,
pages 9 and 10) that in view of Johnson's disclosure (col. 4,
lines 59-62) that “[t]his could be accomplished, for example, by
many known local area network (LAN), metropolitan area network
(MAN), and wide area network (WAN) technologies,” that it would
have been obvious to an artisan to use the Internet as the known
LAN, MANN or WAN disclosed by Johnson. As to the use of Web
pages and URLs, we find that use of the Internet would inherently
include Web pages and URLS. We are not persuaded by appellants'
assertion that there is no suggestion in Johnson to use the
Internet as the network of Johnson. The portion of Johnson
relied upon by the examiner has not been argued by appellants.
Although the examiner relied upon col. 4, lines 59-62 for these
features for the first time in the examiner's answer, appellants
had the right to file a reply brief to address the examiner's
arguments, which appellants have not done. From the disclosure
of Johnson, and the lack of any arguments addressing this portion
of the reference relied upon by the examiner, we are not
convinced of any error on the part of the examiner with respect
to claims 96 and 98-102.
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007