Appeal 2007-0897
Application 09/741,926
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer, as expanded
upon here, we sustain the rejection of all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Appellants present arguments only as to independent claims 1 and 7
collectively and present no arguments to us in the Brief and Reply Brief as
to any dependent claim on appeal.
At the outset, to the extent recited in representative independent claim
1 on appeal, we first observe that Appellants’ background discussion of the
invention at Specification page 1, lines 10 through 21 indicates that prior art
web-pages or the information units claimed were included in a history means
that enabled the user to view previously presented pages and to permit
navigation by using forward and backward buttons as well as direct selection
from this history list. It was also recognized here that a web address could
be entered and displayed and a currently displayed page be provided by the
use of a well-known link. As will be shown with respect to each of the two
references relied upon by the Examiner, they have correlated teachings to a
well-known prior art browser where each reference is taught to maintain its
version of the claimed history list.
As to Horvitz, the well-known Internet Explorer browser is discussed
beginning at column 1. Pertinent figures to the issues presented here are
figures 1, 5, 6, and 15A, 15B. The noted browser is discussed with respect
to figure 1 beginning at the middle of column 7 to the bottom of column 9.
It is significant to note that this browser permits selection among stored lists
of addresses in the form of bookmarks with accessibility based upon clicking
a mouse or using hot-links. The top of column 8 indicates that any new web
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013