Appeal 2006-2696
Application 10/266,954
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Seitz US 5,410,543 Apr. 25, 1995
Bravman US 5,646,389 Jul. 8, 1997
Pepe US 5,742,905 Apr. 21, 1998
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 37, 38, 40-42, 44-61, 63, 64, and 67-75 are rejected under
35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pepe and Seitz.
2. Claims 39, 65, and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pepe, Seitz, and Bravman.
The rejection of claims 43 and 62 has been withdrawn (Answer 2).
Claims 1-36 have been canceled.
OPINION
Appellant submits that claim 37 has been rejected in error. Appellant
argues that the rejection has failed to point out disclosure or suggestion in
the references of the final (whereby) clause of the claim, which recites, inter
alia, that the midware server effectively represents the subclients as a single
client. According to Appellant, the “whereby” clause is entitled to
patentable weight because it does more than simply express the intended
result of the steps that are positively recited. Appellant posits that the clause
further defines the scope of the claim because the claim would otherwise
read on a midware server that represents subclients as multiple clients or as
single clients. (Br. 7-9.)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013