Appeal No. 2002-0592
Application No. 09/107,090
Claims 1, 3-21, and 23-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chow in view of Jordan and Diwanji.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
final rejection (Paper No. 10, mailed Nov. 1, 2000) and the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 13, mailed Jul. 2, 2001) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 12, filed Apr. 5, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No. 14,
filed Aug. 27, 2001) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness and that none of the prior art references applied against the claims
teaches or fairly suggests a framework mechanism providing a user extensible data
transfer mechanism that transfers data from a data source to a data target. The
framework mechanism comprising a user extensible place class, the place class
defining at least one place class object corresponding to the data source; at least one
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007