Appeal No. 2000-0190
Application No. 08/784,224
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 11, mailed Mar. 25, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 10, filed Feb. 16, 1999) and reply
brief (Paper No. 12, filed Jun. 3, 1999) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
At the outset, we note that appellant has indicated at page 5 of the brief that the
claims do not stand or fall together; however, we note that appellant has not addressed
each claim separately in the brief. The examiner indicated this to appellant in the
answer at page 2 and appellant traversed the examiner’s position in the reply at page 2.
Therefore, we will address the claims as they have been specifically argued in the brief.
Claims not separately argued will be grouped with their respective parent claims.
With respect to independent claim 1, the examiner maintains that the client and
the server interact to perform searches on databases. The server receives a request
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007