Appeal No. 2001-2267
Application 08/828,687
findings with respect to it. Specifically, appellant argues that
the use of the term gateway in Carr does not mean that Carr
suggests anything about a common interface which may be used by
multiple applications on a single computer as claimed. Appellant
argues that the gateway of Carr relates to a distributed data
processing system, is not an abstract class and does not provide
a common interface which multiple applications may use.
Appellant also argues that Carr does not teach defining
additional classes to contain data that is passed to and from
said desired functions as claimed. Finally, appellant argues
that the proposed combination of references results only from a
hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention. Specifically,
appellant argues that the only motivation for combining the
applied references is to solve the problem which is only
recognized by appellant in this application. Appellant argues
that the artisan would not look to a parallel processing
reference such as Carr to resolve a problem associated with a
single computer [brief, pages 4-13].
The examiner responds by noting that the gateway of the
admitted prior art is a common interface because it connects two
or more distinct mail systems. The examiner also responds that
the entire Carr reference is directed to implementing a gateway
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007