Appeal No. 2000-1323
Application No. 08/923,474
obviousness. The examiner has cited a portion of the Bayless reference dealing with
definition files and automatic updating of shared data to display the most current
information on each client computer system but has not established why this is a teaching
of step (c) of claim 6. Further, it is unclear how or why the skilled artisan would have
employed this automatic updating of shared data or any teaching of definition files to the
Dilts’system.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 6, or of claims 7-9 and 20-25,
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103. While Shastry is applied in addition to Dilts
and Bayless, with regard to claim 25, Shastry fails to provide for the deficiencies of Dilts
and Bayless.
Turning to independent claim 10, 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
steps (c) and (d) which provide, respectively, for “creating an entry in the table in the
database; and sending said inputted information to the table in the communication
management server and storing the sent information in the communication management
database.”
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007