Appeal No. 2005-0074 Application No. 09/739,080 further noted by the examiner (Answer, page 8), the personal computer 104 disclosed by Provost can communicate, view and/or access data over the network (from host data processor 102; see col. 5, ll. 45-49), and thus falls within the scope of the claimed “web client.” With regard to the rejection of claim 49, appellants argue that the remotely located host data processor 102 is not formed as a component of an ID card personalization device as recited in claim 49 (Brief, page 13). This argument is not persuasive since, as noted by the examiner (Answer, page 8), the host computer disclosed by Provost may be considered as a web server. The host data processor communicates with the personal computer 104 (web client)(see col. 5, ll. 29-31). See the specification, pages 11 and 12, where a “web server” allows the web clients to remotely access data (page 12) or serves information or data using Internet protocols to networked devices that include a web client (page 11). Giving the broadest reasonable interpretation to “web server” consistent with the specification, we agree with the examiner that Provost describes a host data processor that functions as a web server within the scope of claim 49. See In re Graves, supra. 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007