Appeal No. 2005-1722
Application 10/420,901
column 20, lines 19-24 (FR2-3; EA4-5). The examiner finds that
Cameron does not teach that (1) the product and award
presentation pages are "web pages," and (2) the awards are "award
points" (FR3; EA5).
Web pages
The examiner finds that although Cameron does not explicitly
teach that the product and award pages are Web pages, they must
inherently be so because the windows "look like web pages in the
sense that they are GUIs and have links" (FR3) and Cameron
teaches multimedia input devices "which could only be used to
full effect only on the Web" (FR3). Alternatively, the examiner
finds that Gifford teaches that Web pages provide multimedia
capability and states that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to implement the presentation pages
taught by Cameron as Web pages (FR3).
Appellant argues that the examiner's reasoning that if a
device has multimedia capability, it must contain a Web page, is
not logical (Br20). It is argued that Gifford does not state
that the multimedia documents are Web pages and it is improper to
assume that multimedia devices, such as the multimedia kiosk in
Cameron, disclose a Web page (Br20). It is argued that the
examiner's statement that because Gifford teaches Web pages have
multimedia capability and Cameron teaches a multimedia kiosk, it
would have been obvious to implement the pages in Cameron as Web
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007