Appeal 2007-1447
Application 10/214,588
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) REJECTION
As set forth above, representative claim 1 requires an apparatus that
acquires, partitions and displays pages of a markup language-based
document received from a remote server. As detailed in the Findings of Fact
section above, we have found that Mighdoll teaches an apparatus including a
WebTV client (1) and WebTV server (5) which acts as a proxy for a WebTV
client (1). (Findings of Fact 7 and 8.) We have also found that, on behalf of
the client computer, the proxy server acquires an HTML document from the
remote server, and forwards it to the client on a page by page basis to be
displayed on the client monitor. (Findings of fact 9 –11.) In light of these
findings, it is our view that Mighdoll teaches the limitation of an apparatus
for displaying markup language-based documents from a remote server, as
recited in representative claim 1. It follows that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting representative claim 1 as being anticipated by Mighdoll.
Appellant reiterates the arguments with respect to the rejection of
dependent claims 2, 3, and 7. Therefore, they fall together with
representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004.)
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
failed to establish that Mighdoll anticipates claims 1 through 3, and 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013