Appeal No. 2006-0947
Application No. 09/732,741
bookmark web page (column 13, lines 31-65).” As an example, the
examiner indicates (answer, page 6) that “a bookmark category of
‘Java’ is related to the group having an interest in Java
programming language group.”
The appellant argues (brief, page 8) that:
[N]one of the drawings or any of the text of Adar
reveals the ability to include different comments
directed to different groups for each of the bookmarks.
It is appellant’s position that Adar does not actually
provide a comments section, but merely allows the
bookmarks to include titles. Further, even if the
‘title’ section in Adar could be interpreted as a
‘commentary’ section, Adar does not allow different
groups to review different comments with respect to the
bookmarks. Instead, all groups viewing a user’s public
bookmark page (using the system in Adar) will all see
the same title, regardless of which group member is
viewing the bookmark.
We agree with appellant’s argument. All of the groups
viewing the bookmark “Java” will only see “Java.” Thus, the
anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 7, 13 through 18 and
24 through 29 is reversed because Adar does not disclose
“different comments for different groups” as required by all of
the claims on appeal.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 7,
13 through 18 and 24 through 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is
reversed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007