Appeal No. 2002-0884
Application No. 08/852,507
We further agree with the Examiner, in contrast to Appellants’
contentions regarding dependent claims 10 and 11, that clear
disclosure exists in Fults of software products produced by
different vendors (e.g. column 17, lines 10-16), and that the
system of Fults (e.g. column 6, lines 48-67 and column 20, lines
35-50) describes different software interface environments and
operating systems constituting “heterogeneous computer platforms”
as broadly claimed by Appellants.
In summary, we have not sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 15-18. With regard to the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we have not sustained the
rejection of claims 1-6, but have sustained the rejection of claims
7-11. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-11 and
15-18 is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007