Appeal 2007-0435
Application 10/082,794
9. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over BEA, APA, and Pagé.
10. Claims 15, 21, 26, 27, 43, 48, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over BEA, APA, and Monson-Haefel.
11. Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over BEA, Chan, and dreamBean.
12. Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over BEA, Chan, and APA.
13. Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over BEA, Chan, APA, and Pagé.
14. Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over BEA, Chan, APA, and Monson-Haefel.
OPINION
In the obviousness type double patenting rejection over Application
No. 10/082,807, the Examiner compares instant claim 1 with claims 1 and 3
of the ′807 application.1 Appellants in response (Br. 6-7) submit that the
claims of the ′807 application are drawn to “an asynchronous web service”
as recited in claim 1 of that application, and not to “a stateful web service as
recited in claim 1 of the instant application.” Appellants do not, however,
provide any reasons why a “stateful” and an “asynchronous” web service
should be regarded as patentably distinct.
1 According to the electronic image file wrapper of the ′807 application,
claim 3 was cancelled and the limitations of claim 3 were incorporated into
base claim 1 by an amendment filed February 7, 2007. Current claim 1 in
the ′807 application is identical in substance to the claims of the ′807
application evaluated in the Answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013