Appeal No. 2001-1478
Application No. 08/853,539
to each event, . . . and routing the event based on the determined routing type." (See
reply brief at page 3.) We disagree with appellants as discussed above.
Appellants argue that the teachings of Gough "does not disclose, suggest or
otherwise render obvious adding events to or removing events from, a handler table
according to interest indications in the events." (See reply brief at pages 3-4.) We find
no support for the "handler table" in dependent claim 6. Therefore, this argument is not
persuasive.
Appellants argue that the teachings of Gough have no apparent relevance to
the claim language. (See reply brief at page 4.) We disagree as discussed above.
Appellants argue that Gough does not disclose registering or unregistering interest in
an event. (See reply brief at page 5.) We disagree as discussed above. Appellants
argue the combination of the teachings. (See reply brief at pages 5-6.) We disagree
as discussed above. Appellants argue that all the events of a group are transmitted to
the same destination in the system of Daniel. (See reply brief at page 6.) Therefore,
this argument is not persuasive as discussed above. We find no language in
independent claim 1 which prevents routing of a group or category. Therefore, this
argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the examiner's rejection as discussed
above.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007