Appeal No. 2006-2700
Application No. 10/705,456
ordinarily skilled artisan would have readily been apprised of the
fact that by selecting a callable function from the list of
available functions in the back-end system, wherein the called
functions utilize parameters as a way to transmit a request to the
back-end system or a response to the requesting client, the API
must necessarily integrate a parameter processing module and a
response processing module as recited in representative claim 3.
In other words, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have aptly
recognized that the recited modules in representative claim 3 are
directed to computer codes stored in memory for performing the
recited functions. Consequently, the ordinarily skilled artisan
would have come to the conclusion that since Shapiro discloses
computer codes used in an API for performing the same functions as
those of the claimed modules, therefore, Shapiro’s program codes
must be equivalent to the claimed modules. Additionally, we agree
with the Examiner that Fisher complements Shapiro by teaching that
the requested data pertains to a wireless device information, which
can be synchronized via an API with an online computer system.
As to the Jones reference,4 the teachings disclosed therein
are limited to reconciling data formats between clients and servers
to efficiently route the data. It is our view that since the
4 The Examiner relied on Jones for its teaching of encapsulating function
calls and associated parameters. However, Appellants amended the claims to
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013