Ex Parte CIRNE et al - Page 5




              Appeal No. 2001-1478                                                                                        
              Application No. 08/853,539                                                                                  


              (See brief at page 4.)  We do not find support for appellants' level of specificity in the                  
              language of independent claim 1.  Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.                               
              Appellants argue that the present invention allows new, arbitrary human interface                           
              clients to be added and, preferably provides a registration process that permits these                      
              clients, or applications, to register interest in events.  (See brief at page 4.)  Again, we                
              do not find support for appellants' level of specificity in the language of independent                     
              claim 1.  Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.  Appellants argue that this may be                    
              accomplished by determining a routing type and  routing  the event to an appropriate                        
              human interface object based on the determined routing type.  (See brief at page 4.)                        
              We do not find support for appellants' level of specificity in the language of                              
              independent claim 1.  Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.                                           
                     Appellants argue that Daniel is a traditional computer system which utilizes                         
              traditional routing.  (See brief at page 4.)  Appellants argue that Daniel teaches that the                 
              events are filtered by a filter to form event groups and the event groups are transmitted                   
              together to an action table to take action rather than routed based upon the routing                        
              type.  Appellants argue that the examiner acknowledges that  there is no disclosure in                      
              Daniel of routing events based on a determined routing type and there is no disclosure                      
              of assigning a routing type to each event.  (See brief at pages 4-5.)  Appellants do not                    




                                                           5                                                              





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007