Appeal No. 2006-0979
Application No. 08/818,185
1-9, 11 and 15-27 and 29-32 stand or fall together with representative claim
28, we will also reverse the examiner’s rejection of these claims.
GROUP II, claims 33-36 and 39
II. We next consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 33-36 and 39 as
being unpatentable over Hamilton in view of Kessler, and further in view of
Tang. Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R.§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004), we
will select independent claim 33 as the representative claim for this group,
because it is the broadest independent claim in Group II.
Appellant notes that Group II independent claims 33 and 34 add the
concept of a “stringified object reference” being used as the format for the
object reference for the Naming Context Object [brief, page 12]. Appellant
further notes that these claims still recite in various forms the on-demand
download of an object reference for a Naming Context Object to a web
browser or applet executing therein [id.]. Appellant argues that Hamilton
and Kessler do not disclose nor suggest this claimed feature [id.]. Appellant
further argues that the Tang reference (which is relied upon to disclose the
use of “stringified object references”) also does not disclose or suggest this
feature [id.].
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007