Appeal No. 1997-0629
Application No. 08/085,505
for each received service request, delivering to
a selected one of the transport service providers a
corresponding transport service request conforming
to the prespecified format appropriate to the
transport service provider and
enabling an application program to dynamically
cause inclusion of a selected one of a plurality of
different transport service providers in the set of
transport service providers running on the computer.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Britton et al. (Britton) 5,425,028 Jun. 13,
1995
(Filed Jul. 16, 1992)
Claims 2-8 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as being anticipated by Britton.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the2
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the Examiner, the arguments
The Appeal Brief (revised) was filed July 29, 1996. In response to2
the Examiner’s Answer dated August 27, 1996, a Reply Brief was filed October
28, 1996, which was acknowledged and entered by the Examiner without further
comment on December 27, 1996.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007