Appeal 2007-0914
Application 09/904,734
particularly in view of the recognition in paragraph 9 of the Specification
that it is known to select a character set when the Content-Type header fails
to specify a character set. Therefore, we find the weight of the evidence
shows that the subject matter of claim 12 was within the admitted prior art.
Regarding the rejection of independent claims 1 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Veditz and Watanabe, we
note that claims 1 and 16 are Markush-type claims containing two
alternative series of steps, (a) and (b). We further note that the series of
steps in (a) substantially correspond to the steps performed by the computer
program of claim 12. To the extent Appellants make reference to claims 1
and 16 at page 14 of the principal Brief, the Examiner addresses the
preamble limitations relating to client-server communications in the
statement of the rejection on page 6 of the Answer, as well as on pages 14
and 15 in the Examiner’s responsive arguments. What Appellants do state at
page 14 of the Brief about Watanabe is not disputed. However, Appellants
fail to address what the Examiner says is pertinent to claims 1, 12, and 16 as
it relates to all aspects of client-server communications. The Reply Brief
fails to challenge the Examiner’s findings with respect to Watanabe. A better
context of the details of client-server communications is seen from our
discussion of Appellants’ admissions regarding client-server
communications, as discussed supra.
Regarding admissions, our reviewing court has recently stated:
Accordingly, PharmaStem's argument that stem cells had
not been proved to exist in cord blood prior to the experiments
described in the patents is contrary to the representation in the
specification that the prior art disclosed stem cells in cord
blood. Admissions in the specification regarding the prior art
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013