Appeal 2007-0764
Application 09/840,469
1 lacks factual support for the determination that Devine discloses a display
2 controller that runs browser applications and has an IP address with each of
3 the browser applications having a unique port associated with the IP address.
4 Devine discloses only that the NAT/Router connects the customer to the
5 public Internet or the Starbucks server. In addition, the IP address of the
6 NAT/Router and the relationship to the associated browsers is not disclosed.
7 The foregoing flaw in the Examiner’s evidentiary showing finds no cure in
8 the Kohut reference. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the rejection of claim
9 1 and claims 4 to 9, 11 and 12 dependent thereon. Independent claims 13,
10 14, and 20 contain language similar to claim 1 in regard to the display
11 controller. These claims recite a display controller or multiple browser
12 controller which runs browser applications and has a unique IP address. The
13 claims also require that the browser applications have ports associated with
14 the IP address. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection as to claims 13,
15 14, and 20 and claims 15 to 19, 21, and 28 to 33 dependent thereon.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013