Appeal No. 2002-0884
Application No. 08/852,507
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claimed
limitations are not present in the disclosure of Fults, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent
claims 1 and 4, nor of claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 dependent thereon.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection, based on Fults, of independent claim 15, as well as
claims 16-18 dependent thereon. In addressing the language of
independent claim 15, the Examiner, recognizing that Fults does not
explicitly disclose a multiple computer structure, nevertheless
suggests the obviousness to the skilled artisan of implementing the
plural application program interoperability features of Fults in a
network computer environment. We find, however, for all of the
reasons discussed supra, that Fults does not teach or suggest a
system with plural autonomous application programs, let alone one
in which the interoperability of two application programs is
described by another application program.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 7-11, we note that, while we found
Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive with respect to the 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-6 previously discussed, we
reach the opposite conclusion with respect to claims 7-11. At the
outset, a review of the language of claims 7-11 reveals that,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007