Appeal No. 2000-2091
Application 08/441,024
page 12). Furthermore, the Examiner does not disagree with
Appellant’s definition of “client” and “server” and indicates
that appellant’s claimed client becomes a server when it
provides services to the server, although the services are not
requested by the server.
Appellant responds by relying on the definition of
“recovery” and argues that the client of the claimed invention
does not recover or restore lost data to the server. Instead,
the client proceeds with its data transfer when the server
becomes operational (reply brief, page 2). Additionally,
Appellant points to the definition of a server as responding
to “commands from a client” to conclude that the client of
claim 1 is not a server since it does not respond to another
computer in response to a request for service (oral hearing
and reply brief, page 3).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The conclusion that the
claimed subject matter is obvious must be supported by
evidence, as shown by some objective teaching in the prior art
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007