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 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007