Appeal 2007-0764
Application 09/840,469
1 FINDINGS OF FACT
2 Appellants invented a system for providing a multiple browser
3 interface that includes a display controller which runs the browser
4 applications for respective browser displays (Specification p. 7). The
5 display controller ensures that requests for web content are associated with
6 the proper browser display and directs web content to the proper browser
7 display upon receipt from the server (Specification p. 7). The display
8 controller is able to recognize user input from each browser display and
9 determine the particular browser display from which the input came
10 (Specification p. 11). The display controller has a unique IP address and
11 each of the browser applications has a port within the display controller IP
12 address (Specification p. 14).
13 Devine discloses an integrated customer interface system for
14 communications network management which includes a Frame NAT/Router
15 that connects the customer to the public Internet or the Starbucks web server
16 (col. 8, ll. 39 to 48). Devine does not disclose that the Frame NAT/Router is
17 a display controller that runs browser applications. In addition, Devine does
18 not disclose that the Frame NAT/Router has an assigned IP address or that
19 each of the browser applications has a unique port associated with the IP
20 address.
21
22 DISCUSSION
23 The Examiner has a duty of supplying a factual basis for an
24 obviousness rejection. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173,
25 178 (CCPA 1967). The Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness in this case
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013