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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007