Appeal 2007-0786
Application 10/262,142
programmed and stored within the agent representing the resource.” (Answer 13).
Although the Specification teaches that the processor function can either be an
embedded part of the resource or be remote and operate on behalf of the resource
(Finding of Fact 1), independent claims 1 and 12 require that at least one processor
function be “embedded with a resource.” Thus, we do not agree with the
Examiner’s construction that would permit the processor function to be stored with
the agent remote from the resource and still be considered embedded with the
resource. The Specification describes being embedded as a preferred alternative to
and not a variant of remote location operating on behalf of the resource (Finding of
Fact 1). Thus, the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
Specification necessarily limits embedded to being an embedded part of (e.g., co-
located with) the resource. Because Cesta does not teach a processor function
embedded with a resource as construed herein (Finding of Fact 5), the Examiner
has not made out a prima facie case of anticipation as to claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, 13,
and 16-19.
While we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the Examiner may
wish to consider whether claim 1 in particular would have been obvious over the
cited references to one of ordinary skill in the art given that there is no dispute that
Cesta shows communicating with/negotiating between scheduling agents and in
view of the fact that communicating with a processor function embedded with a
resource (e.g., a hotel computer) corresponding to a list of desired resources for
facilitating a meeting was well known in the art at the time the application was
filed. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013