Appeal No. 2004-2155
Application No. 09/562,641 Page 3
applying the definition information, upon receipt, to the
client-side component, whereupon information of interest is
retrieved from the database and is presented to the end user by
the client-side component in accordance with the format
specification.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Sarkar 6,012,067 Jan. 4, 2000
Rogers et al. (Rogers) 6,094,655 Jul. 25, 2000
(filed Sep. 18, 1997)
Claims 1-8, 11-14, 16-29, 32 and 33 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Rogers.
Claims 9, 10, 15, 30, 31 and 34 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rogers in view of
Sarkar.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 18, mailed
March 19, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellants' supplemental brief
(hereinafter: brief)(Paper No. 1, filed February 7, 2004) for
appellants' arguments thereagainst. Only those arguments
actually made by appellants have been considered in this
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007