Appeal No. 96-3301
Application 08/176,603
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Davidson et al. (Davidson) 5,307,490 April 26, 1994
(filed August 28, 1992)
Claims 1-3 and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Davidson. With respect to the two
independent claims, claims 1 and 8, the examiner states
(Examiner's Answer, page 3):
a. per claims 1 and 8:
Davidson describes an object oriented environment where
a (client) object may access (interface) another object
(server) to run a function (for example, print) inside the
later [sic], where the two programs or objects may be
independent of each other. See col. 2, lines 6-30, for
example. The requesting (client) program provides a
communication channel between the server and the client, as
disclosed in col. 3, lines 8-13.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 10) for a
statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper
No. 9) for the appellants' position.
OPINION
"Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention." RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444,
221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant argues that "Davidson does not teach accessing
functions of a user interface environment, which environment
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007