Appeal No. 2002-0884
Application No. 08/852,507
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. In a data processing system having a first autonomous
application program and having a second autonomous application
program, the improvement comprising;
a third autonomous application program having means for
describing interoperability of said first autonomous
application program and said second autonomous
application program in human understandable form.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Fults et al. (Fults) 5,327,529 Jul. 05, 1994
Claims 1-11 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Fults. Claims 15-18 stand finally rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fults.1
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs2, final Office action,
and Answer for their respective details.
OPINION
1 Although in the final Office action, the Examiner’s stated ground of
rejection of claims 15-18 included a reliance on the combination of Fults and
Hickey (U.S. Patent No. 5,627,977 issued May 6, 1997), the statement of the
grounds of rejection of claims 15-18 at page 3 of the Answer relies on Fults
alone. Since the Examiner makes no mention of Hickey anywhere in the Answer,
we consider the rejection of claims 15-18 to be based solely on Fults.
2 In response to the final Office action mailed February 3, 1999 (Paper
No. 7), the Appeal Brief was filed June 7, 1999 (Paper No. 8). In response to
the Examiner’s Answer dated August 2, 1999 (Paper No. 10), a Reply Brief was
filed September 28, 1999 (Paper No. 11), which was acknowledged and entered by
the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated October 9, 2002 (Paper
No. 14).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007