Appeal No. 1995-4702
Application 08/071,049
OPINION
Generally, for the reasons set forth by the appellants in
the brief and reply brief, we reverse the rejections of claims
15 and 30 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
As the briefs and the answers reflect, the focus of the
issue presented on appeal is the "correspondence" features
recited in each independent claim on appeal. This
correspondence is reflected in claim 15 by the recitation of:
said extension portion of memory having
specific memory locations for data storing that
correspond to specific memory locations in said
server portion of memory;
a plurality of extension routines each having
an address, each of said extension routines
corresponding to one of said server routines.
Claim 15 goes on to recite features where the extension
intercepts and redirects input and output protocol requests
from the controlling application program and requests to one
of the extension routines where it is stated "said one of said
extension routines corresponding structurally to the server
routine to which said inputs and outputs protocol requests are
directed." Similar features are recited in a slightly
different manner in method independent claim 30 on appeal.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007