Appeal No. 2005-0004
Application No. 09/135,230
group are believed to be separately patentable. Merely pointing out
differences in what the claims cover is not an argument as to why the
claims are separately patentable.
Appellants have not individually argued dependent claims 2 through 4, 8, 22
through 27, and 39 through 41. Accordingly, we will group these claims with their
respective independent claim and will consider the claims in the following five (5)
groups:
-Group A will consist of claims 1 through 4 and 8, with claim 1 as the
representative claim.
-Group B will consist of claims 5 and 6, with claim 5 as the representative claim..
-Group C will consist of claims 21 though 27, with claim 21 as the representative
claim.
-Group D will consist of claims 38 through 41, with claim 38 as the representative
claim.
-Group E will consist of claims 42, 44 and 46, with claim 42 as the representative
claim.
Rejection of claims in group A (claims 1-4 and 8)
Appellants argue, on pages 5 and 6 of the brief, that claim 1
recites “providing a network connection between the network browser and the
server machine in accordance with connection information associated with the
particular network address” (claim 1, lines 6-8). Here, the network connection
being made serves to facilitate communication between the network browser and
the server machine, and the network connection is dependent on the connection
information which is associated with the particular network address.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007