Ex parte NAKAI - Page 4




              Appeal No. 96-3368                                                                 Page 4                  
              Application No. 07/735,020                                                                                 


                     The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the                     
              appealed claims are:                                                                                       
                     Harvey et al. (Harvey)             5,136,716             Aug. 04, 1992                              
                                                 (Eff. Filing Date Sep. 04, 1987)                                        
                     Gregg Foster, "Collaborative Systems and Multi-user Interfaces," Thesis                             
                     submitted to Computer Science Division, Electrical Engineering and                                  
                     Computer Sciences Department, University of California, Berkeley.  (Oct.                            
                     31, 1986)                                                                                           
                     Marcel Schelvis et al. (Schelvis),  "The Implementation of a Distributed                            
                     Smalltalk," ECOOP '88 Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science                                
                     322, Springer-Verbg, pp. 212-232.  (1988)                                                           
                     Claims 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable                  
              over Foster.                                                                                               
                     Claims 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable                  
              over Schelvis in view of Harvey.                                                                           
                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the                   
              appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Examiner's                        
              Answer (Paper No. 17, mailed June 21, 1995) and the supplemental Examiner's Answer                         
              (Paper No. 20, mailed December 8, 1995) for the Examiner's                                                 















Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007