Appeal No. 2006-1287 Page 6
Application No. 10/047,116
Furthermore, Rust belies the examiner’s allegation that "Scherpbier . . discusses
recording all of the hyperlinks," (id. at 8), by explaining that "[t]he problem," (col. 1, l. 61)
with Scherpbier is the latter's inability to enable "the user of the first computer
('Presenter') to be able to record and save the presentation so that the one or more
second computers ('Client') can view the presentation at a later time." (Id. at ll. 61-65.)
Absent a teaching or suggestion of enabling a subsequent user to select a
recorded, but previously unselected, hyperlink to thereby access a linked hypertext
document, we are unpersuaded of a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we
reverse the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 19 and of claims 2, 3, 7, 12, 13, 17, 20, 21,
and 25, which depend therefrom.
Furthermore, the examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of
Gupta cures the aforementioned deficiency of Rust. Therefore, we reverse the rejection
of claims 4-6, 8-10, 14-16, 18, 22-24, and 26-28, which depend from claims 1, 11, and
19.
III. CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejections of claims 1-28 under § 103(a) are reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007