Appeal No. 2002-0807
Application No.08/672,588
representative claim for Appellants’ suggested grouping including
claim 12 and its dependent claims 13-15, we sustain the
obviousness rejection of this claim as well. We agree with the
Examiner (Answer, page 19) that the limitations of claim 12,
which extend the features in previously discussed claim 27 to
“another processor coupled to the server processor,” are met by
the disclosure of Laursen’s distributed client-server computing
environment. Although Appellants reiterate their arguments that
the applied prior art does not suggest the claimed pre-defined
generic program nor the illusion of the apparent execution of a
server program at the client processor, we find such arguments
unpersuasive for all of the reason discussed supra.
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of all of the claims on appeal. Therefore,
the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 2-7, 9-18, 22-24,
and 26-32 is affirmed.
-10–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007