Appeal 2007-3518
Application 10/995,295
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1 through 3 and 11 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Meyer. The Examiner’s rejection is set
forth on pages 3 and 4 of the Answer.
Claims 4 through 10, and 16 through 21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Montulli. The
Examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 4 through 6 of the Answer.
Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Brief (received
August 24, 2006), the Reply Brief (received January 16, 2007) and the
Answer (mailed November 15, 2006) for the respective details thereof.
ISSUES
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through
3, and 11 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is in error. Appellants argue
that Meyer does not teach a browser that stores the contents identifier as
recited in Claim 1. (Br. 5-6). Appellants assert that Meyer discloses a
decoder that captures the identifier, packages a message with the identifier
and invokes a communications application (browser) to forward the message
to the server. (Br. 6). Further, Appellants assert that transmission by a
browser does not inherently require storage by the browser. (Br. 6-7).
In response the Examiner states, on pages 6 and 7 of the Answer:
All data is in the form of binary 1's and 0's, stored in memory
registers, caches, buffers, and queues in a computer system. Data can
also be physically stored on a storage medium, but a computer must
have the data stored temporarily in a memory, register, cache, buffer,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013