Appeal 2006-2704
Application 10/007,829
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Farros (‘810) US 5,930,810 Jul. 27, 1999
Farros (‘686) US 6,717,686 B1 Apr. 6, 2004
(filed Nov. 19, 1999)
Corporation, 172-177, 266-271 (1998).
The following rejections are on appeal before us:
1. Claims 1, 3-5, 10-19, 23-26, 29, 30, 32-41, and 43-46 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Farros ‘810 in
view of Farros ‘686.
2. Claims 27 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Farros ‘686 in view of Farros ‘810.
3. Claims 31 and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Farros ‘810, Farros ‘686 in view of Gralla.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is made to the
Briefs and the Answer for the respective positions of Appellants and the
Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered (37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
OPINION
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 10-15, the focus of
Appellants’ arguments is that the claimed steps of “downloading executable
generic access instructions to a client browser” and accessing a personal
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013