Appeal No. 2006-1456
Application No. 09/896,802
particular descriptive labels (i.e., next, previous, forward, back). However, such
labels fail to change the function or structure of the recited buttons and fail to
distinguish over Cheng.
Appellants argue at page 6 of the reply brief that although Cheng teaches
using scrolling output for moving between hyperlinks, Claim 8 is patentable
because Cheng does not teach using the scrolling output to both determine the
URL and access the web page associated with the hyperlink. We disagree. No
limitation in either claim 3 or claim 8 requires that the scrolling output implements
the accessing. Rather, the claim 3 and claim 8 are silent as to what implements
the accessing.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
VI. Whether the Rejection of Claims 5 and 18 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence
relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art the invention as set forth in claims 5 and 18.
Accordingly, we affirm.
With respect to dependent claims 5 and 18, Appellants merely repeat the
argument made with respect to claim 1. We have already addressed that
argument above and found it unpersuasive.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007