Appeal No. 2005-1243
Application No. 10/017,739
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer, we sustain
the rejection of the noted claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and
35 U.S.C. § 103. Since appellant has presented arguments only as to
representative independent claim 1 and claims 4-6 and 16 rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102, and to claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, all remaining claims
fall with their respective parent claims. The subject matter of independent
claims 1, 22, 24 and 26 is to be considered together with respect to
representative independent claim 1 on appeal since they are stated to have
similar limitations as noted at the top of page 6 of the principal brief on
appeal.
We add the following to round out the examiner’s positions in the
answer.
McCreery’s system captures or otherwise gathers data from/on/at the
Internet by means of the entire Internet activity analyzer in Figures 2 and
3. Even though appellant recognizes at the top of page 7 of the principal
brief on appeal that McCreery captures and analyses data packets and is
even said to gather them, appellant asserts at the top of page 9 of the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007