Appeal No. 2004-0820
Application No. 09/317,312 Page 19
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of anticipation of claim 1.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 4, 5, and
11-14 dependent therefrom is reversed.
We turn next to independent claim 6. At the outset, we make
reference to our findings, supra, with respect to the teachings
of Glaser. In addition, we observe that claim 6, unlike claim 1
does not recite that after the ascertainment step, transmitting
to the other computers data which enables them to display part of
the document. Rather, claim 6 recites that when scrolling
terminates, ascertaining a coordinate within the document which
is contained within the part of the document being displayed, and
transmitting a data packet to a packet-switched network for
delivery to other of the multiple computers. Because claim 6
does not recite what is in the conveyed data packet, we find that
the transmitting of the coordinates to provide display of the
arrowhead and connecting line to be sufficient to meet claim 6.
We therefore find that Glaser anticipates claim 6. Accordingly,
the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed.
As claim 15, which depends from claim 6 has not been separately
argued, the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is
affirmed.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007