Appeal No. 2001-2369
Application 08/728,422
non-network server. The examiner observes that although Loucks
discourages the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to
the artisan based on other well known advantages. The examiner
responds that the personalities of Loucks includes commands
requiring access to a network server and a non-network server
[answer, pages 6-9].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 or of claims 2-6 which depend therefrom
because the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness. The examiner’s rejection fails to account for
several recitations in the claimed invention. First, independent
claim 1 recites that there is a network server and a non-network
server and that a command must be forwarded to one of these two
servers based on each received command. Thus, the network server
must receive every command requiring a network server and the
non-network server must receive every command not requiring the
network server. With respect to the network server, appellant
argues that the Telnet server does not receive every command
requiring a network server in Yu. The examiner has not responded
to this argument. Since the examiner has not identified a non-
network server in the rejection, it is impossible to determine if
a single non-network server in the applied prior art receives
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007