Appeal No. 2005-0074
Application No. 09/739,080
“web client” as required by claim 33 (Brief, pages 7-8).2
Appellants’ arguments are not well taken since, as previously
discussed, each of OrdaCard and Provost discloses all the
limitations required by claim 33 on appeal within the meaning of
section 102. Since anticipation is the epitome or ultimate of
obviousness, we affirm the rejection of claim 33 under section
103(a). See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569,
571 (CCPA 1982). Of course, this affirmance also applies for the
same reason to claim 49 (for Provost in view of Knowlton) and
claims 34, 39 and 49 (for OrdaCard in view of Knowlton).
With regard to the rejection of claims 35 and 36 over
OrdaCard in view of Knowlton, appellants argue that there is no
disclosure or suggestion of a web page containing links to
information in Knowlton (Brief, page 10). This argument is not
persuasive for reasons noted by the examiner (Answer, page 9),
namely that clicking on an image at a server to get visual links
to information describes, or at least suggests, a web page
containing links to information (see Knowlton, col. 11, ll. 14-
36, and col. 12, ll. 30-58).
2
2Appellants erroneously state “Provost” in the argument when
they apparently meant “OrdaCard” (Brief, page 7, second full
paragraph).
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007