Appeal No. 1997-1208
Application 08/077,219
proxy or copy of a remote object, a thread is created in a
server process which impersonates a client thread. The
Examiner asserts, however, that this difference is only one of
“degree” and draws the conclusion (Answer, page 4 which makes
reference to pages 13 and 14 of the Office action dated
January 31, 1995, paper no. 6) that:
One of ordinary skill in the DP [data processing]
art would know how to implement [the] East et al
impersonation feature as applicants’ claimed
proxy object because they only differ in degree.
After reviewing the East reference in light of the
arguments and evidence of record, it is our view that the
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness. We do not find the Examiner’s attempt to draw
parallels between the thread
impersonation feature of East and the claimed proxy-object
feature to be convincing. As pointed out by Appellants(Brief,
page 8), East discloses at column 31, lines 58-60:
Further, the only characteristics that are
impersonated in the preferred embodiment are
the identifiers held by the client.
In our opinion, this impersonation feature described by East
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007