Appeal No. 2001-2672
Application 08/990,360
We note that Appellants’ claim 1 recites “said shipper being
able to ship said at least one server object to said second
computer system via more than one remote object access model.”
Appellants’ claim 4 recites “said shipper mechanism being capable
of dynamically switching between said more than one remote object
access model.” Appellants’ claim 8 recites “said shipper
mechanism being capable of dynamically switching between said
more than one remote object access model.” Appellants’ claim 11
recites “said shipper being able to ship said at least one server
object to said second computer system via more than one remote
object access model.” Appellants’ claim 16 recites “said shipper
mechanism being capable of dynamically switching between said
more than one remote object access model.” Finally, Appellants’
claim 22 recites “selecting a remote access model based on said
evaluating step, said remote access model being one of at least
two remote access models that are available for selection; and
shipping said server object to said client computer system using
said remote access model.” Thus, we find that the scope of all
the claims require a shipper being able to ship at least one
server object to said second computer via more than one remote
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007