Appeal 2006-0272
Application 10/024,964
Appellants assert merely displaying a document in a web browser is not the
same as transmitting the image to the user. Appellants conclude the
Examiner’s interpretation of the recited term “transmitting” is contrary to the
plain and ordinary meaning of the term as understood by persons of ordinary
skill in the art (Br. 7-9).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner, as finder of fact, maintains
the language of the claim reads on the Brown reference. In particular, the
Examiner finds that once the “Access Rights Information” [ARI] plugin 630
(of the client web browser) performs redaction, the redacted data is
transmitted to the client output device (i.e., display) via a graphics adapter or
audio/video adapter (Fig. 6, see “Client Output Devices(s) 640,” see also
Fig. 3, col. 9, ll. 61-63). Thus, the Examiner finds Brown discloses
transmitting a redacted document (as generated by “ARI plugin 630”) from
the web browser via a graphics adapter to a display for viewing by the user,
where the user corresponds to the recited “source of the request” (Answer 4-
5).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue the recited “transmitting” is not
merely displaying information on a monitor. Appellants argue the Examiner
has failed to consider the claim as a whole (Reply Br. 2).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference
that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim
invalidates that claim by anticipation. Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 77 USPQ2d 1321, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2005),
citing Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc.,
976 F.2d 1559, 1565, 24 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Anticipation
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013