Appeal 2007-0716
Application 09/946,201
The Examiner therefore concludes that Schreiber anticipates claims 1
through 4, 6, 8 through 18, 20, and 22 through 55. (Id.)
We affirm.
ISSUES
The pivotal issue in the appeal before us is as follows:
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner failed to establish that Schreiber
anticipates the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), when Schreiber
teaches a server that transmits an updated encryption key to client computers
that have previously registered with the server to permit the clients to decode
protected images transmitted by the server?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The invention
1. Appellants invented a method and system for controlling clients’
access to the content of a webpage located on a server (104).
(Specification 9.)
2. The client device (112), using a resident browser application (610),
requests to access the content of the webpage from the server (104). (Id.)
3. Upon receiving from the server (104) the requested webpage along
with the user’s profile and HTML ARI tags associated with the requested
content, the web browser application (610) parses the content of the
webpage to determine how to present it to the client device. (Id.)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013