Appeal No. 96-3368 Page 7
Application No. 07/735,020
claim 1. Appellant argues that the Examiner was requested to “specifically” identify the
elements in Foster which correspond to the claim limitations. (See brief at page 7,
referencing paper No. 11.) Appellant further argues that “one can only speculate as to how
the Examiner believes that Foster discloses or makes obvious these elements of claim 1.”
(See brief at page 7.) We agree with appellant.
Again, the Examiner generally asserts that Foster teaches all of the elements
except that
Foster did not specifically teach a remote management station retransmitting a
request from the central station to another remote management station. However,
the capability to provide such retransmission is inherent/self-evident in Foster's
system which uses powerful workstations and the LOOPS programming language,
and one of ordinary skill in the DP art would be motivated to implement such a
system modification (such as chaining remote management stations or clustering
them around one communications server) when communication costs outweighed in
importance the need for immediate communication. [See answer at pages 3-4.]
Here, the Examiner has merely asserted that the capability exists in the system of Foster,
but not provided a motivation to include such a feature into the system. Furthermore, the
Examiner argues that the system of Foster could provide for the “retransmission” of a
request from a central station from one remote station to another remote station, but the
claim recites:
each of the remote management stations comprising:
.
control means responsive to the request from the central
management station for making a search through the stored OSI-based
definitions to determine the executability of said request, reading a non-OSI-
based definition from said non-OSI-based definitions storage means if said
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007