Appeal No. 2005-1243
Application No. 10/017,739
examiner contends that McCreery discloses an agent. The discussion here
merely asserts an agent is a software agent as defined by a handbook. It
is significant to note that appellant does not challenge or assert here that
McCreery does not teach such an agent or a software agent. The examiner
first asserts that the network interface 240 in Figure 2 and the
corresponding element 316 in Figure 3 within McCreery works on behalf of
the analyzer, thus acting as an agent. Specific teachings also exist of a
software-based user agent at column 11, lines 29-51 and the so-called GET
function discussed beginning at column 12, line 39, both of which appear
to be conventional in well-known Internet protocols.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner rejecting
various claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
affirmed.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007