Appeal No. 1995-4702
Application 08/071,049
Keefe simply falls short of disclosing, for example, the data
structures of the memory and routines depicted in appellants'
disclosed Figure 2 which is the basis for the claimed
correspondence and structure correspondence features.
We are, therefore, not in agreement with the examiner's
views expressed initially at page 4 of the answer that the
noted claim language is as broad as the examiner appears to
view it. The examiner uses an ordinary dictionary definition
of the word "correspond" to indicate a close comparison, a
matching or a certain degree of equivalence or parallelness.
The examiner's view is that "any particular relationship
between the extension and server routines would be a
'correspondence' to the extent that the claim language defines
'corresponding.'" This view goes much far than the dictionary
definition of "correspond" anyway. We also find that Keefe's
discussions of various type of linkages does not necessarily
teach the features of correspondence recited in the claims on
appeal as we noted earlier. A mere programming linkage is not
necessarily equivalent to a structural correspondence as
required by the claims on appeal. The mere fact that Keefe's
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007