Appeal 2007-0262
Application 09/925,258
corresponding to the “entry” panel windows as claimed. It is our opinion
that Appellants’ arguments improperly attempt to narrow the scope of the
claims by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no basis in the
claims. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-
28 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We further find to be without merit Appellants’ argument which
attempts to distinguish the claimed request receipt detection feature from the
disclosure of Trueblood. According to Appellants (Br. 12-13), in contrast to
the language of the appealed claims which requires the detection of the
receipt of a request from a server to a user terminal for display of a entry
panel window, Trueblood discloses the opposite, i.e., requests are made from
a user terminal to a server for performance of a particular operation.
In the first instance, we find no error in the Examiner’s stated position
(Answer 10) that any request by a user to a server for access to an
application will result in a request by the server to the user terminal to
display the necessary windows to process a particular application. For
example, the “event” messages disclosed by Trueblood (e.g. col. 5, ll. 56-64)
as being communicated from a server to a user terminal in a response to a
user request for application access would, in our view, be reasonably
considered to be “requests” for information to be entered into the display
windows for the requested application.
Secondly, our review of Appellants’ disclosure finds no specific
identification of the presentation of a log-in screen on a user terminal
resulting from a communication between a user terminal and a server as
being a “request.” Accordingly, we fail to see why the communications
from Trueblood’s server to the user terminal, such as the previously
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013