Appeal No. 2002-0378
Application No. 08/942,264
Access System for storing and managing a plurality of object files which can be
accessed by the client processing system. Clearly, the combination of Carroll with the
objects of Owens would have taught this storage and management of the objects and a
communication means for transmitting a predetermined set of object files between the
host and the client to update the system of the client. Therefore, we find that appellants
have not rebutted the prima facie case of obviousness, and we will sustain the rejection
of independent claim 6 and its dependent claims 9 and 10.
With respect to independent claim 1, appellants argue that the examiner
addressed the results of the steps taken by Carroll to achieve an end result and does
not address the specific steps recited in the language of independent claim 1. (See
brief at page 12.) We agree with appellants. Appellants argue that the use of objects
was never taught or suggested by Carroll. (See brief at page 13.) We agree with
appellants, but note that the examiner relied upon the teaching of Owens to teach and
suggest the use of objects and an object oriented environment. Appellants argue that
object tables are different than the rate data of Carroll and that the object tables are
utilized for both their data content and the functionality they contain. We disagree with
appellants and find no limitation as to the use of functionality of the objects or the
content of the objects recited in independent claim 1. Therefore, this argument is not
persuasive.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007