Appeal No. 2006-3122
Application No. 10/247,769
of accesses and notifies the browser of the arrangement. The links to the ranked
sites are then displayed on the initial screen when the browser is restarted
[Takatori, ¶¶ 0177-0181]. By updating the access count in response to selecting
the displayed links, Takatori’s display therefore inherently includes the number of
times that a particular link was selected from the viewable document. Moreover,
Takatori’s display inherently indicates the number of times that each link was
selected from the displayed page since the previous update.
For the above reasons, we find that Takatori fully meets all limitations of
the independent claims. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s anticipation
rejection of those claims. Since appellants have not separately argued the
patentability of dependent claims 2-6, 15-17, 23, 24, 28, 30, and 31, these claims
fall with the independent claims. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572,
2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See also 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We will also sustain the examiner’s rejections of claims 7-9, 18, 21, 22, 25,
26, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We find that the examiner has established
at least a prima facie case of obviousness that appellants have not persuasively
rebutted. Specifically, the examiner has (1) pointed out the teachings of Takatori,
(2) pointed out the perceived differences between Takatori and the claimed
invention, and (3) reasonably indicated how and why Takatori would have been
modified by the other cited references to arrive at the claimed invention [answer,
pages 10-16]. Once the examiner has satisfied the burden of presenting a prima
facie case of obviousness, the burden then shifts to appellants to present
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013