Appeal No. 2004-2271
Application No. 09/731,650
IV. Whether the Rejection of Claims 4, 9, and 14 Under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Block does fully meet the invention as
recited in claims 4, 9, and 14. Accordingly, we affirm.
With respect to dependent claim 14, Appellants argue at page
8 of the brief, “[t]his passage [of Block] is silent as to the
data which is sent being a stored data set produced by a
downloaded, client-side script for producing tables of dynamic
size according to the screen display capabilities of the client
device.” We have reviewed claim 14 and find no such limitation
in the claim. We find that this argument is not commensurate in
scope with claim 14 and is unpersuasive for that reason.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
V. Whether the Rejection of Claims 5, 10, and 15 Under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Block does fully meet the invention as
recited in claims 5, 10, and 15. Accordingly, we affirm.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007