Appeal 2007-0325
Application 09/780,248
1 20. Thus, Harrington shows an auction system in which the highest bid is
2 continually shared by the server with all of the clients, and that software
3 on the bidders’ computers in a JAVA implementation provides
4 computational assistance in preparing bids and comparing them to the
5 highest bid, and only then are the bids submitted after a confirmation
6 step.
7 21. Thus, Harrington shows making a decision at the local computer to
8 accept or reject a new bid from a user at the local computer; and only if
9 the new bid is accepted at said local computer, sending information
10 about the new bid to the server computer, wherein said accepting a bid
11 comprises comparing a local bid to said highest bid information, and
12 sending said information to said server computer only when said local
13 bid is higher than said highest bid information.
14 22. The Examiner took official notice that web browsers have the capacity
15 to automatically refresh, i.e., update their contents, when appropriately
16 triggered (Answer 10).
17 23. The Appellant contends that when the trigger is manually pressing a
18 refresh button, the action is not automatic (Br. 10).
19 24. Claim 23, and the claims depending from it do not specify what
20 degree of automation is provided. Certainly, the instructions that a
21 program follows to refresh data after an operator triggers a refresh
22 automatically updates the information. Further, push technology, which
23 caused a server to continually refresh clients with data in web
24 applications was notoriously old and well known at the time of the
25 invention.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013