Appeal No. 2006-1252 Page 7
Application No. 10/310,886
monitor and/or control the fluid dispensing devices of Whitmore comes from
Scherer. The rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
With respect to claim 2, appellant (brief, p. 11) argues that the examiner has
failed to specify where in the references the recited feature of the network server
having a unique address recognizable in the network for allowing a user to access
said network server by incorporating said unique address in a request sent to said
network server might be found or suggested. In response, the examiner states, on
page 6 of the answer, that
Whitmore's mention of the use of the internet with a link
(32) to an “internet web site'' (see col. 3, lines 8 and 9) at
the very least, imply such a unique address being used.
Such a system does not work without an internet address,
as is the standard way of accessing sites on the internet.
Scherer also discloses use of TCP/IP (transmission
control protocol/internet protocol) as well as other well
known protocols such as HTTP and SMTP, for example,
which utilize a similar address format.
Appellant has not rebutted the examiner’s statement by explaining why the
disclosure alluded to by the examiner would not have at least been suggestive of
the feature highlighted by appellant. The rejection of claim 2 is thus sustained.
With respect to claim 3, appellant argues that the examiner has failed to
specify where in the references the “static and dynamic information” feature is
found or suggested (brief, p. 12). In response, the examiner contends, on page 6 of
the answer, that Whitmore’s interface shows static information, such as calibration
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007