Appeal No. 2000-0883
Application No. 08/672,528
through 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sandage alone.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 15,
mailed January 21, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants’ Brief (Paper No.
14, filed November 1, 1999) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 16, filed
March 27, 2000) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1 through 45.
The examiner admits (Answer, page 4) that “Sandage does not
teach (1) the sending and the receiving applications operate
asynchronously to one another. ” Such asynchronous operation is
recited in each of independent claims 1, 16, and 31.
The examiner asserts (Answer, page 4) that the Microsoft
Windows enhanced mode operating system “provides both synchronous
and asynchronous protocols of interprogram messaging. ” Further,
the examiner explains that in the asynchronous mode, a Windows
program “(receiving program) is provided with a message queue
(application message queue), and a sending program posts a
message to the receiving program’s message queue and returns
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007