Appeal No. 2000-1323
Application No. 08/923,474
rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2-5 and claims 14-19, dependent thereon, under 35
U.S.C. § 103. While Shastry is applied in addition to Dilts and Bayless, with regard to
claim 19, Shastry fails to provide for the deficiencies of Dilts and Bayless.
Turning to independent claim 6, appellant makes the same argument regarding
“motivation” as with claim 1. For the reasons, supra, we find this argument to be not
persuasive. However, appellant further notes that the examiner has completely ignored
step (c) which provides “sending the inputted information to the communication
management database and storing the sent information in the communication
management database.”
The examiner’s response is to argue, at page 20 of the answer, that Bayless’
definition files are platform independent and may be created by a design
tool of the present invention running on any of the supported platforms
and used automatically in all supported platform without conversion
(see column 12 lines 44-54). And by updating shared data automatically,
each client computer system 14 may always display the most current
information (see column 16, lines 52-54). It would have been obvious ...
to combine automatically updated information and import the stored
information to directory (see Fig.32) into Dilts’ invention. By doing so,
the system would enhance by providing the most accurate up-to-date
information to end users.
While the examiner has now responded to what he regards as the teaching in the
applied references for step (c) of claim 6, we, like appellant, are unpersuaded of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007