Appeal No. 2001-0999
Application No. 08/972,220
“wherein at least a portion of said client is computer platform independent.” From the
disclosure of Daly that the system may be implemented on different platforms or
operating systems, it is clear that while the invention may be implemented in different
operating systems, each implementation would have been platform dependent based
upon the operating system used. Therefore, Daly does not teach “wherein at least a
portion of said client is computer platform independent.” Therefore, the examiner has
not set forth a prima facie case of anticipation, and we cannot sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-3, 25 and 26.
35 U.S.C. § 103
The examiner applies various other references in combination with Daly to reject
the remainder of the dependent claims, but the examiner does not rely upon these
teachings to remedy the deficiency noted in Daly. These additional references are
used merely to teach or suggest various differences in the user interface in
administrating/managing the network.1 Therefore, the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed invention since the examiner has
1 We note that the examiner has not applied Kulkarni to remedy the deficiency in Daly noted
above, but we find that Kulkarni teaches, in the background at col. 1, lines 47-50, that “In SunSoft's
Solstice products for example, the management tools may be distributed over multiple workstations.”
(Emphasis added.) In the Description of the Invention, at col. 3, lines 7-10, Kulkarni discloses that “[a]
management system or ‘nerve center’ 111 is provided in the network to manage and control the network.
While the management
system 111 is illustrated as a single entity on the network, it may in many embodiments be distributed over
multiple workstations and servers.” (Emphasis added.) These teachings of a distributed management
system tend to suggest an alternative to the server based management system of Daly. We leave it to the
examiner to further evaluate these teachings of Kulkarni which have not been applied by the examiner
previously.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007