Appeal 2006-0272
Application 10/024,964
THE REJECTION
The following rejection is on appeal before us:
1. Claims 1, 2, 5-11, 14-18, and 21-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Brown.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon supports the Examiner’s rejection of
the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
Independent Claims 1 and 17
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1
and 17 as being anticipated by Brown.
Appellants argue Brown does not disclose the following limitations:
redacting unauthorized portions of the requested document by
visually blurring the unauthorized portions and transmitting the
redacted version of the requested document to the source of the
request.
(Claim 1, emphasis added).
Appellants argue an artisan would not consider the above claim
language as broadly encompassing using a web browser to display a
[redacted] document to a user, as interpreted by the Examiner in the Answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013