Appeal No. 2001-1478
Application No. 08/853,539
(See brief at page 4.) We do not find support for appellants' level of specificity in the
language of independent claim 1. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that the present invention allows new, arbitrary human interface
clients to be added and, preferably provides a registration process that permits these
clients, or applications, to register interest in events. (See brief at page 4.) Again, we
do not find support for appellants' level of specificity in the language of independent
claim 1. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. Appellants argue that this may be
accomplished by determining a routing type and routing the event to an appropriate
human interface object based on the determined routing type. (See brief at page 4.)
We do not find support for appellants' level of specificity in the language of
independent claim 1. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that Daniel is a traditional computer system which utilizes
traditional routing. (See brief at page 4.) Appellants argue that Daniel teaches that the
events are filtered by a filter to form event groups and the event groups are transmitted
together to an action table to take action rather than routed based upon the routing
type. Appellants argue that the examiner acknowledges that there is no disclosure in
Daniel of routing events based on a determined routing type and there is no disclosure
of assigning a routing type to each event. (See brief at pages 4-5.) Appellants do not
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007