Appeal No. 1999-2251
Application No. 08/546,897
and 7) that support his contentions, we agree with the examiner
that the “token-like mechanisms called ‘selections’” disclosed
by Giokas (column 4, lines 35 through 37) function as “state
information” as claimed by appellants.
The appellants’ arguments (brief, pages 5 and 7) to the
contrary notwithstanding, we likewise agree with the examiner’s
assessment (answer, page 4) that:
The systems (X and PM) of Giokas are independent,
closed systems (in accordance with the applicant’s
definition of “closed” on page 1 lines 30-33 and page
3 lines 1-3 of the present specification), as
described in Giokas at column 1 lines 45-49, column 2
line 67 to column 3 line 3, and column 4 lines 29-31.
The systems operate asynchronously with respect to one
another, since each independent, closed system may
operate without communication or connection with the
other (CCLIENT is not required for either independent
system’s operation), and each independent system’s
server is clearly controlled with an independent
clock.
Since Giokas’ disclosure specifically describes a
client/server architecture (column 1, lines 32 through 34;
column 2, line 66 through column 3, line 3), and shows the same
in Figure 3, for example, appellants’ argument (brief, page 7)
that Giokas does not disclose a client/server architecture for
the PM server as recited in claims 5 and 8 is without merit.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007