Appeal 2007-1340
Application 09/996,125
However, Acharya does not specifically teach that the designated
portion of the Web page that is loaded is a designated portion of a cached
Web page. (FF 11.) Nevertheless, as discussed above, we conclude that the
differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are not sufficient
to render claim 1 nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made.
Finally, Appellants argue that the Examiner used impermissible
hindsight because of the Examiner's "contention that the selection of a
hyperlink consists of a user digitally pointing [selection of] to an address
[hyperlink]." (Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 4.) The Examiner concluded that
the rejection was proper because only knowledge within the level of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made was taken into
account. (Answer 6.)
We do not find error in the Examiner's position, and do not agree that
the Examiner used impermissible hindsight in making the rejection. As
discussed above, the Examiner correctly found that the "digitally pointing"
claim limitation reads on selecting a hyperlink.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and the analysis above, we conclude
that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-15, and 17-29. The
rejection of those claims is affirmed.
32
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013