Appeal No. 2006-1802 Page 7
Application No. 09/785,918
While we have reversed the examiner’s rejection as improper, this should not be
interpreted in any way as asserting that we view the instant claimed subject matter as
clearly patentable. We offer an opinion only on the propriety of the rejection and the
rationale offered to support it. It appears to us that the subject matter of the claims might
possibly be met by any system having two clients, one on the “client” side of the network
and one on the “server” side of the network and that many commercial websites
interacting with customers might meet this limitation. However, we are in possession of
no specific evidence that shows this and we are not at liberty to sustain a rejection or
make a new ground of rejection based on what we perceive to be well known.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of clams 1-6, 12-17, 21-28, and 30
under 35 U.S.C. §103.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
)
Errol A. Krass )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Jerry Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Howard B. Blankenship )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EAK/eld
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007