Appeal No. 2004-1533
Application 09/100,223
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 4 and 6. With respect to those arguments which are the
same arguments we considered above with respect to claim 1, these
arguments have been decided adversely to appellant for reasons
discussed above. With respect to the new argument made in the
reply brief, independent claim 4 recites “one or more servers.”
Since “one or more servers” is met by a single server,
appellant’s argument that Hotaling teaches a single server system
fails to overcome the rejection.
With respect to independent claims 25, 32 and 33, which
are grouped together by appellant [brief, page 4], the examiner
essentially makes the same findings discussed above with respect
to claim 1. Although appellant nominally argues that these
claims stand or fall separately from claim 1, appellant makes the
same arguments we considered above with respect to claim 1
[brief, page 7]. Appellant also argues in the reply brief for
the first time that the system of Hotaling, unlike the claimed
invention, discloses displaying several columns of information
associated with all the selected users [page 8].
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007