Appeal No. 2006-1802 Page 4
Application No. 09/785,918
burden is met, the burden then shifts to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case
with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the
evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See Id.; In re
Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1040, 228 USPQ 685, 687 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 146-147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually
made by appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant
could have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR §41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004)].
In the instant case, the examiner contends that Quatrano detects an event, i.e., an
HTTP request by participant 10, at a server in a client server communication protocol,
referring to column 13, lines 6-15. The examiner also contends that Quatrano discloses
that upon detection of an event, a browser session is shared between at least two clients,
with the clients being on the client side of the client server communication protocol,
referring to column 12, lines 50-65, and column 13, lines 47-58. With this much, we
agree.
The examiner realizes that Quatrano does not teach one of the clients being on the
server side of the client serve communication protocol, as claimed. Again, we agree.
The examiner turns to Picazo for such a teaching. Specifically, the examiner notes that
computers 22, 24, 26, and mainframe computers 16 and 18 are located on the same local
network, and the examiner interprets the claim language, “one of said clients being on the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007