Appeal No. 1997-3433
Application 08/395,548
an inquiry from the agent, e.g., in response to a "callback"
from the conference manager to the object manager to determine
what objects have been added (col. 6, lines 38-45), where the
object manager is in communication with the clipboard. We
also do not agree with Appellants' argument that "the claimed
step of notifying is part of communicating to the user of the
second machine that there is new material on the clipboard at
the first machine (otherwise they would not be aware of the
existence of this new material)" (Br9) because: (1) claim 1
does not specify what entity receives the notification, so it
could be just the clipboard that receives notification; and
(2) Appellants' own Figure A of the Attachment shows
notification being received by the conferencing software P2P-
A, not by the other computer.
Appellants admit that Thessin discloses the step of
"obtaining a list of available formats for said submitted
material" as shown in arrow 3.
What is not admitted to be taught is the step of
"transmitting the format(s) corresponding to Object Embedding
to the second computer." Instead, Thessin discloses
transmitting only the data object itself (e.g., col. 13,
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007