Appeal No. 96-3077
Application No. 08/255,544
73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996) citing W. L. Gore & Assocs.,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
At the outset we note that the Examiner’s position set
forth in the final rejection is that, while Gammage et al. do
not specifically discuss a message path selection feature, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that a path
selection based on message type would be necessary for
operation of the system of Gammage et al. Appellant’s
response to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Gammage et al. argues that any selection
mechanism in Gammage et al. is internal to the sending task
and not external as claimed. We note that Appellant’s claim 1
recites
message path selection logic external to said
sending and receiving objects and responsive
to said message type of said message being
transferred by said message path means to
select said first or second message transfer
means for transferring said message between
said objects.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007