Appeal 2007-0727
Application 09/951,711
Of independent claims 1, 9, 17, and 25 included within the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), Appellants only present arguments to these
independent claims collectively, and present no separate arguments to the
remaining dependent claims encompassed by this rejection.
We initially note that claims 1, 9, 17, and 25 contain several
limitations directed to acts intended to occur in the future. Claim 1 recites “a
local application proxy . . . to provide a . . . proxy interface”, “an automatic
network awareness arrangement to automatically gain network awareness”,
“a network which becomes connected thereto”, and “network awareness
being used to effect provision” (emphasis added). These “provide”, “gain”,
“become connected” and “used to effect” steps are merely passively recited
and need not actually occur for the claim to be anticipated. Nonetheless,
even if these steps were positively recited, Kralowetz discloses each of them
and anticipates claims 1, 9, 17, and 25, as discussed below.
In support of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the Examiner
points to the Abstract, col. 4, lines 9-67; col. 6, lines 25-49 and Figs 2-3.
Appellants’ characterization of col. 4, lines 9-67, appearing at page 8 of the
Brief, actually discusses subject matter disclosed in column 9 of Kralowetz,
so these arguments are not persuasive with respect to the Examiner’s
reliance on col. 4, lines 9-67.
Appellants’ remaining argument at page 7 of the Brief characterizes
col. 6, lines 25-49 of Kralowetz as describing the proxy engine’s “ability to
facilitate communication between the local endpoint application and the
network endpoint application” and goes on to argue that this section does not
disclose or suggest “an ability to automatically gain network awareness of a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013