Appeal No. 2006-1785 Page 23
Application No. 10/768,827
obtaining a response associated with the request from a data source, and
responding to an application as described by the response associated with
the request, as discussed supra with respect to the rejection of claim 26 as
being anticipated by McLain.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 5 as
being unpatentable over Ryzl in view of McLain.
As per dependent claims 7 and 18
Appellants argue that Ryzl and McLain, taken alone or in combination,
do not teach nor suggest “wherein said data source comprises at least one
file” as recited in claim 7 and similarly in claim 18 [brief, page 40].
The examiner points to the “adContent file” taught by Ryzl at ¶0068,
line 7 [answer, pages 10 and 29]. We will sustain the examiner for
essentially the same reasons argued by the examiner in the answer, and
also because we find that McLain’s command response table (fig. 14) is
inherently stored as at least one file, as claimed.
As per dependent claims 3, 6, 11, 13, 19, 23, 24 and 32
Because appellants do not separately argue dependent claims 3, 6,
11, 13, 19, 23, 24 and 32 with respect to this rejection, these claims fall
with representative claim 1. See In re Nielson, supra at 1572. Accordingly,
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007