Appeal No. 2006-2076
Application No. 09/747,651
by the user to the intermediary results in a document being
retrieved from the server but, rather, require that the user
actually requests from the intermediary a document located at the
server. In Markus ‘042, at the time the user makes the autofill
request to the selective proxy (intermediary), the user’s client
already has the document. The request by the user to the
selective proxy is merely for the selective proxy to fill in the
document. Markus ‘042 does not indicate that the user knows
whether the selective proxy obtains the document from the server
or from the user’s client. Hence, Markus ‘042 does not indicate
that the request from the user to the selective proxy to fill in
the document is a request for the selective proxy to obtain the
document from the server.
Also, the examiner does not explain how Marcus ‘042, alone
of in combination with the other applied references, would have
fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a request
from the user to the selective proxy for a document located at
the server.
The examiner, therefore, has not carried the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness of
the appellants’ claimed invention.
DECISION
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007