Appeal No. 2006-1314
Application No. 09/823,084
As to claims 13 through 16, we note that the appellants argue these claims as a group in p.
15 through 17 of the brief. Accordingly, we select claim 13 as representative of the group. The
appellants essentially make the same arguments as to claims 6, 10 through 12 and 17 through 19,
which are unpersuasive for the same reasons as above. Thus, we sustain the rejection as to
claims 13 through 16.
As to claims 7 through 9, we note that the appellants argue these claims as a group in p. 18
through 20 of the brief. Accordingly, we select claim 7 as representative of the group. The
appellants argue that Graham is silent as to dynamic interacting [Brief, p. 20]. The examiner
responds that Graham discloses dynamic interaction at col. 9 lines 17 through 25 [Answer, p.
15]. We note that the portion of Graham cited by the examiner does indeed describe interaction
between the servlets and the client, which is fairly characterized as dynamic. Therefore we find
the appellants’ arguments unpersuasive and sustain the rejection as to claims 7 through 9.
Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21 as rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being unpatentable as anticipated by Graham.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007