Appeal No. 2006-2076
Application No. 09/747,651
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Rejections over prior art
We need to address only the independent claims, i.e., claims
1, 15 and 29. These claims require that a user at a client
requests from an intermediary an electronic document located at a
first address at a server. For this claim requirement the
examiner relies upon Markus ‘042 (answer, page 4).
Markus ‘042 discloses that an external entity (user)
instructs a document browser to request a document from a server
which returns the document to the browser (col. 3, lines 21-25).
The user then activates a form autofill trigger located in the
document, thereby causing the document browser to contact a
selective proxy which contacts the same server, requests from the
server the same document, fills in the document, and sends the
filled-in document to the document browser which displays it to
the user (col. 3, lines 25-44).
The examiner argues that “[t]he autofill trigger serves as a
request for the document located at a first address on the
document server because the trigger results in the document being
retrieved” (answer, page 9).
The appellants’ claims do not merely require that a request
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007