Appeal 2007-0716
Application 09/946,201
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Schreiber US 6,353,892 B2 Mar. 5, 2002
(filed Dec. 5, 2000)
The Examiner rejected the claims on appeal as follows:
Claims 1 through 4, 6, 8 through 18, 20 and 22 through 55 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Schreiber.
First, Appellants contend1 that Schreiber does not anticipate claims 1
through 4, 6, 8 through 18, 20, and 22 through 55. Particularly, Appellants
contend that Schreiber does not teach an access requestor that processes
HTML ARI tags along with the user profile in order to restrict the user’s
access to the webpage based on the user’s determined level of access to said
webpage, as recited in representative claim 1. (Br. 27; Reply Br. 3.) Next,
Appellants contend that Schreiber does not teach or suggest that the ARI is a
tag in a web page, as recited in claim 2. (Br. 26.) Similarly, Appellants
contend that Schreiber does not teach that the webpage and ARI are received
in a browser application of a computing device, as recited in claim 3. (Br.
27.) Additionally, Appellants contend that Schreiber does not teach a mail
server application, as recited in claim 45. (Id.) The Examiner, in contrast,
contends that Schreiber teaches the cited limitations. (Answer 3, 6, and 7.)
1 This decision considers only those arguments that Appellants submitted in
the Appeal and Reply Briefs. Arguments that Appellants could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to have been waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004). See also In re Watts,
354 F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013