Appeal 2007-0761
Application 09/907,610
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 to 24
under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) and 103(a). Reviewing the findings of facts cited
above, we conclude that claims 1 to 8, 11 to 20, and 22 to 24 were properly
rejected for being anticipated by Kennelly under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The
prima facie case was presented by the Examiner, and supported by Findings
of Fact #1 to #3 above. Appellants’ contentions of error by the examiner
were reviewed, but found not to be supported by the record. (FF 4-7). It is
questionable whether Appellants’ argument concerning the requirement for
an administrator’s page is reflected in the claimed subject matter. (FF 5).
As the Kennelly reference teaches the claimed elements, as indicated above,
the contention of the Appellants concerning unexpected results is not
considered persuasive in this discussion of anticipation. (FF 6).
Appellants further contend that the rejection of claims 9, 10, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) was not supportable. On review, we found that the
prima facie case was presented by the Examiner, and that the traverse by
Appellants was not substantiated. (FF 8-11). Appellants argue that the
Examiner has not demonstrated a “reference to a graphic file for a control
icon corresponding to the interface control means”. (Brief, 24, bottom). We
do not find Appellants’ argument convincing, in view of the Mullaney
disclosure.
Appellants contend that the Kennelly and Sameth references were
improperly combined. We find that Examiner’s explanation of the rejection
(Answer 10) and Response to Arguments (Answer 18) fully support the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013