Appeal No. 2005-0778
Application No. 09/867,587
the both the email billing information and the WWW billing information contain an
indication of the source of the data as the “EBSC” which we find to be an indication of a
location on the network. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain
the rejection of claims 37 and 46.
With respect to dependent claims 38 and 47, we find no disclosure in Hogan of
the transmission of a hyperlink but for at the initial registration. We find that the
examiner’s reliance upon this one time transmission of the hyper-link is unreasonable.
Therefore, appellants’ argument is persuasive and we cannot sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 38 and 47 and their dependent claims 39 and 48. (Therefore, we
need not address the rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. § 103 since the examiner does
not rely upon the teachings of Bezos beyond teaching that a hyper-link can be an icon.
Therefore, Bezos does not remedy the underlying deficiency.)
CONCLUSION
To summarize, while the decision of the examiner to reject claims 34-37, 43-46,
and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
38, 40-42, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed, and the decision of the examiner
to reject claims 39 and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007