Appeal No. 2001-0999
Application No. 08/972,220
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 102
Appellants argue that the examiner’s rejection is erroneous and that the
language of independent claim 1 requires specific functions and the client “configures
said managed element server to manage operation of said at least one manage [sic,
managed] computer network element using a graphical user interface.” Appellants
argue that Daly does not teach that this function is performed by the client, but that
Daly teaches that the function is performed by Daly’s server. (See brief at page 8.)
Appellants argue that the client-server of the claimed invention is a distributed
architecture which allows the administrator to manage any network resource from
anywhere in the network. (See brief at page 8.) Appellants argue that the examiner
maintains that Daly has a remote client executing on a platform independent
administrative console, but has not provided any clear support for the position. (See
brief at page 9.) We agree with appellants.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007