Ex Parte NOWATZKI et al - Page 5



          Appeal No. 2001-0966                                                        
          Application No. 08/852,660                                                  

          programs which issue a request (claim 23), or the provider of a             
          program call from a program call statement embodied in the                  
          application program (independent claim 29).                                 
               After reviewing the Duxbury reference in light of the                  
          arguments of record, we are in general agreement with Appellants’           
          position as expressed in the Brief.  Although claims are to be              
          given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the            
          specification, the Examiner is required to provide a basis for              
          interpreting claim language in a particular manner.  Our review of          
          Duxbury reveals that although several programs in the disclosed             
          system are identified as “application” programs (e.g. banking               
          application 11 and server applications 14), the transaction                 
          processing monitor 18 is not identified as such.  While this fact           
          alone is not conclusive of whether the transaction processing               
          monitor 18 of Duxbury can reasonably be interpreted as an                   
          “application program,” it, at least in our view, requires the               
          Examiner to provide some basis for the asserted interpretation.             
               In reviewing the Examiner’s stated position, we note that when         










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

Last modified: November 3, 2007