Appeal No. 2005-0074
Application No. 09/739,080
With regard to the rejection of claims 34, 35 and 36 over
Provost in view of Knowlton, appellants argue that neither
Provost nor Knowlton disclose or suggest a web browser as recited
in claim 34 (Brief, page 9). Appellants further argue that
Knowlton does not disclose or suggest the elements of claims
35 and 36 (Brief, page 11). These arguments are not persuasive.
As noted by the examiner (Answer, page 10), Knowlton discloses
a web browser to display HTML web pages containing links to
information (i.e., Visual Links Automatic Capture Engine 138A
accesses HTML pages located in Web Servers 118 by Network Data
Collector and Indexing Server 122; see col. 10, ll. 35-47). With
regard to claims 35 and 36, we adopt our comments from above.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness based on the reference evidence. Based on the
totality of the record, including due consideration of
appellants’ arguments, we determine that the preponderance of
evidence weighs most heavily in favor of obviousness within the
meaning of section 103(a). Therefore we affirm the examiner’s
rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007