Appeal No. 2001-1362
Application No. 08/670,684
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 7, 23 through 29 and 42 through 44.
We agree with the examiner (answer, page 3) that Hamilton discloses a distributed
client/server computer system in Section 2. The examiner is of the opinion (answer, pages 3 and 4)
that Hamilton discloses a servant, dispatch mechanism, client objects, servant objects and remote
dispatch information in Section 4. With respect to the claimed remote and local method tables, we
do not agree with the examiner (answer, page 4) that Hamilton discloses a remote method table and
a local method table in Section 4. Hamilton discloses a method table in Section 4 that is not divided
in the same manner as the claimed local and remote method tables. The examiner acknowledges
(answer, page 4) that Hamilton does not explicitly disclose dispatch mechanism. Turning to the
teachings of Kapoor, we agree with the examiner (answer, page 4) that Kapoor discloses “routing
the call to bypass the transport layer” (column 6, lines 1 through 9). The examiner’s contentions
(answer, page 4) to the contrary notwithstanding, Kapoor does not base the routing decision on
whether the client and the servant share or do not share the same process. In fact, Kapoor makes
clear (Abstract; column 5, line 11 through column 6, line 20) that the distributed computer system
operates on a client process and a server process. Kapoor is silent as to whether the two processes
are the same or differ from one another. In spite of the lack of such a teaching in Kapoor, the
examiner nevertheless concludes (answer, page 4) that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kapoor with those of Hamilton because “it
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007