Appeal 2007-0278
Application 10/042,047
imagery, text, …” (¶ 0248, emphasis added). Shamoon further discloses that
content may be streamed or may be received as static data structures
(¶ 0331). Even if the work is a video work (e.g., see ¶ 0346), we note that
Shamoon’s invention supports the Real Networks architecture (¶ 0196) that
we find is capable of displaying a video screen embedded within a single
web page. Therefore, we find the weight of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s position that the argued language of the claim broadly but
reasonably reads on Shamoon in the manner indicated in the Answer.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have decided the appeal
with respect to the claims 2, 7, 8, 13, and 14 on the basis of the selected
representative claim alone. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims as being anticipated by Shamoon for the same
reasons discussed supra with respect to representative claim 1.
Claims 19, 20, 25-28, 35, and 36
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19, 20, 25-28,
35, and 36 as being anticipated by Shamoon. Since Appellants’ arguments
with respect to this rejection have treated these claims as a single group
which stands or falls together, we will select independent claim 19 as the
representative claim for this rejection because we find it is the broadest
independent claim in this group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellants argue that “there is no teaching, expressly or implicitly, of
sending a ‘single web page’ in accordance with the option(s) selected by a
requester,” as claimed (Br. 9, ¶ 1).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013