Appeal No. 2002-1398
Application No. 08/572,474
The examiner relies on the following references:
Brandle et al. (Brandle) 5,218,699 Jun. 8, 1993
Travis et al. (Travis) 5,280,610 Jan. 18, 1994
OMG, “The Common Object Request Broker: Architecture and
Specification,” (CORBA) OMG Doc. No. 91.12.1, Rev. 1.1, Draft 10,
pp. 36, 40-43, 147-151, 154 (Dec. 1991).
OMG, “Common Object Services, Specification, (COSS) Vol. 1,” OMG
Doc. No. 94-1-1, Rev. 1.0, First Ed., pp. 74-82 (Mar. 1, 1994).
Claims 4-6, 8, 9, 11, 13-18, 20-25 and 27-30 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. §103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner
cites COSS/CORBA and Travis with regard to claims 4-6, 13-16, 20-
24, 27 and 30, adding Brandle with regard to claims 8, 9, 17, 18,
25 and 28. With regard to claims 29 and 11, the examiner cites
CORBA, Travis and Brandle.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, it is incumbent
upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007