Appeal No. 2004-0820
Application No. 09/317,312 Page 2
a) detecting, in one computer, the occurrence of scrolling
through a document;
b) when said scrolling terminates, ascertaining which part
of the document is being displayed by said computer; and
c) after said ascertainment, transmitting to other computers
data which enables them to display said part of the document.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Glaser 6,072,463 Jun. 6, 2000
(filed Apr. 17, 1995)
Furst 6,297,819 Oct. 2, 2001
(filed Nov. 16, 1998)
Claims 1, 2, 4-7 and 11-151 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 (e) as being anticipated by Glaser.
Claims 3, 8-10, 17 and 18 stand rejected under 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Glaser in view of Furst.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 9, mailed
June 25, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
1 Although the statement of the rejection (answer, page 3) does not list
claims 11-15, we observe that since the body of the rejection (answer, pages 4
and 5) refers to each of these claims and sets forth the examiner's reasoning
as to why the examiner considers each of these claims to be anticipated by
Glaser, we consider the examiner's lack of inclusion of these claims in the
statement of the rejection to have been an oversight by the examiner.
Accordingly, we consider claims 11-15 to be included in the group of claims
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007