Appeal No. 2005-1431
Application 09/442,070
is disclosed in the context of a windowing environment, which has not been shown to necessarily
imply the presence of a network environment.
The examiner is therefore correct to conclude that appellants' patent fails to provide
express or inherent support for the following "network" limitations in claim 40:
(a) "a network computer environment" and "said network environment";
(b) "one network server"; and
(c) "document received over said network from said server."
For the same reasons, the '701 patent fails to disclose a "distributed hypermedia
document" (claim 40) (emphasis added), which is a hypermedia document having
embedded data objects located on different computers in a network. See Doyle patent,
column 5, lines 24-34 ("The Internet . . . is a 'distributed' system because data objects that
are imbedded within a document may be located on many of the computer systems
connected to the Internet.").38
2. "at least one client workstation"
The phrase "at least one client workstation" appears in claims 40 and 50. The term
"client workstation" is not defined in the Doyle specification. Appellants contend it is broad
enough to read on a stand-alone computer; the examiner construes it to mean a network
computer. See Final Action at 7 "(The limitation 'client workstation' [is] defined as a computer
38 The examiner appears to agree with appellants' view that their disclosed compound
document is a hypermedia document. We disagree for the reasons given infra in the new ground
of rejection.
42
Page: Previous 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007