Appeal No. 2006-2723
Application No. 09/891,264
can be either mobile devices or non-mobile devices (Figure 7, described at col. 7,
lines 26-44).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the Beck disclosure is not
limited to transmission between like computing devices. It follows that we find
Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive because the Examiner has shown that the
Beck disclosure is not limited to the narrow embodiment that Appellant relies upon
in arguing that the references solve different problems.
Appellant further alleges that the combination of Yates and Beck will
unavoidably change the principle of operation of the references (brief, page 16).
We observe that in support of this conclusion, Appellant uses the same factual
characterization of the Beck reference that was used in the above argument. Based
on our analysis of the references outlined above, and essentially for the same
reasons asserted by the Examiner, we find no error in the combination of
references.
3. Arguments Related to Dependent Claims 2 and 4
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Appellant alleges that there is nothing in Yates
which causes the terminal agent to send a notification of a condition, or a request
for service, to a server (reply brief, pages 5-6).
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007