Appeal No. 2002-0655
Application No. 08/743,201
(column 7, lines 55 through 57), and controls the launching of the
editors (column 11, lines 16 through 18 and 45 through 61), Hinks
is silent as to use of the TSHELL to perform the noted claimed
function of communicating the specifications. Thus, the
anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 3 is reversed because we
agree with the appellants’ arguments (brief, page 10; reply brief,
page 7) that the TSHELL can not perform the claimed function of a
middleware subsystem.
In view of the foregoing, the obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 4 through 9 is reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 10 through 15 is reversed
because Hinks discloses a single computer system (Figures 1 and 2;
column 5, lines 42 and 43), and does not disclose a server for
storing the generated specifications.
The obviousness rejection of claims 16 through 29 is reversed
because the single computer disclosed by Hinks is incapable of
performing the functions performed by the claimed at least three
computers.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007