Appeal No. 2001-2672
Application 08/990,360
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings
are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277
F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002). With
these principles in mind, we commence review of the pertinent
evidence and arguments of Appellants and Examiner.
Appellants argue that Rymer does not teach, disclose or
suggest the use of more than one remote object access model as
required by all of the Appellants’ claims. For claims 1 through
3 and 11 through 15, see page 4 of the brief; for claims 4 and 6
through 10, see page 6 of the brief; for claims 5, 17 and 22
through 24, see page 7 of the brief. Appellants point out that
Rymer pertains to managing different implementations of the same
remote object access model. Thus, Rymer does not describe a
shipper that works using more than one remote object model but
rather pertains to different implementations of the same model,
namely CORBA 1.x.
The Examiner responds by arguing that the scope of the
claimed “remote access model” is reasonably subject to a broad
range of interpretations that would include Rymer’s different
implementations of the same remote object access model. See
pages 7 and 8 of the answer.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007