Appeal No. 2004-0228
Application No. 09/348,411
service, as claimed. Similarly, with regard to column 8, lines
30-35, column 13, lines 56-58, and column 16, lines 24, through
56-58, reciting access to a server, appellants argue that this
implies a prior connection so that it cannot suggest the client
application establishing the communication channel.
We agree with appellants.
There are many references in Hoyle to accessing the Internet
via an existing TCP/IP connection to obtain advertising (see, for
example, column 7, lines 38-41), but we find nothing in Hoyle,
and the examiner has not convincingly pointed to anything
therein, indicating, or suggesting, that a client application
performs the establishment of a communication channel from a
local device to an online server (as required by independent
claims 1, 8 and 26), and that the client application displays a
client window continuously so long as the communication channel
from the local device to the online service is maintained (as
required by independent claims 1 and 26).
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1,
8 and 26, or of claims 2-7, 9-14 and 27-29, dependent thereon,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to independent claim 15, appellants assert that
the limitation, “each ad object comprising a resource locator for
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007