Appeal No. 2002-0399
Application 09/100,227
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 11) and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 17) (pages referred to as "EA__")
for a statement of the examiner's rejection, and to the brief
(Paper No. 16) (pages referred to as "Br__") for a statement of
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Appellants argue all of the pending claims 1-25 to stand or
fall together for purposes of appeal (Br5). We take claim 1 as
the representative claim.
The examiner finds that Haller does not disclose a
"documentation module containing rules for using the object-
oriented programming component to exchange data between the user
computer and the provider computer," as recited in each of the
independent claims (FR3; EA4). The examiner notes that
"[a]lthough Java applets transfer data according to rules for
data exchange as defined by the API, the rules are not
incorporated into a documentation module packaged into the Java
applet [in Haller]" (EA4-5). The examiner finds that "Whitehead
discloses a network component utilizing object oriented
programming components having a documentation module containing
rules and attributes for data exchange and system performance
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007