Appeal No. 2001-2672
Application 08/990,360
Rymer J., OMG’s UNO, Distributed Computing Monitor v9, N12,
p32(8), 1994.
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1, 3 through 5, 8 and 11 through 21 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Colyer in view
of Rymer. Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 22 through 24 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Colyer in view
of Rymer and further in view of Morris.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs1 and the answers2 for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and arguments of Appellants and
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on October 23, 2000. The
Examiner in response to this brief reopened prosecution and
issued another non-final rejection on January 3, 2001.
Appellants filed another supplemental appeal brief in response to
the non-final rejection on April 5, 2001. We will refer to the
supplemental appeal brief as simply the brief.
2 In response to the appeal brief filed on April 5, 2001, the
Examiner mailed an Examiner’s answer on June 15, 2000. The Board
remanded to the Examiner on January 28, 2002. In response to the
remand, the Examiner mailed a supplemental Examiner’s answer on
March 29, 2002. We will refer to the supplemental Examiner’s
answer simply as the answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007