Appeal No. 2005-0509 Page 9
Application No. 09/449,237
177 USPQ 705, 706 (CCPA 1973); In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580,
152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967).
As to the sponsorship status of the portal, again we find the Examiner’s
position to be the better. Appellant at page 8 of the specification states that
sponsorship is related to location data including portal addresses and at page 3
states that users’ access rights are adjusted according to their location. That is,
portal addresses control access rights. As the Examiner has pointed out in the
rejection, Baker teaches this at column 4. We find that Baker clearly teaches
differing access rights based on location data including portal addresses. We
find that the further labeling of a portal as sponsored or unsponsored does
nothing to change the structure or functionality of the portal. We concur with the
Examiner that this is nonfunctional descriptive material.
Finally, we note that while Baker teaches “authorized portals” (referred to
as users or user terminals), Baker does not appear to have “authorized users”
within the meaning of claim 81. However, authorization of individual users (as
opposed to terminals) is such a pervasive concept in the art that we presume this
is why Appellant did not argue it. Irregardless, we deem this argument to be
waived by Appellant as Appellant chose not to make the argument.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007