Appeal No. 2001-2127
Application No. 08/660,730
the same local platform. It appears to be the examiner's
position that this is also suggested by Tantry because Tantry
transfers the message to the server when the client and server
are not located on the same local platform, but that, in Tantry,
the message is not transferred to the remote server when that
server is unavailable. Instead, when the remote server is
unavailable in Tantry, the message is queued at the local
platform where the client is located until the remote server
becomes available. This is contrary to appellants' invention
where the message is always transferred to the server when the
client and server are not located on the same local platform,
whether or not the server is available.
Now, the examiner's position is understandable because the
claims do not recite the message "always" being transferred or
that the message is transferred "whether or not the server is
available." However, it is our view that such limitations are
implied in the instant claim language. This is because the
claims state that the message is transferred on the transport
network when, i.e., whenever, the client and server are not
located on the same platform. The recitation is not limited to
only when the server is available. The only condition is that
the client and server are not located on the same local platform
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007