Appeal No. 2002-2137
Application No. 08/772,738
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 39 through 72.
Each of independent claims 39 and 55 recites a disconnect
mechanism used by a software application so that the software
application need not wait to receive input requested from a web
browser. Similarly, independent claim 71 recites steps of a
software application requesting input from a web browser and
disconnecting from the web browser so as not to have to wait for
the requested input. The examiner applies Hideaki in view of
Gralla against all of the claims. Specifically, he states that
"Hideaki teaches the invention substantially as claimed by
disclosing clients, a server, and a disconnect mechanism that
facilitates a request for input from the clients such that a
software application need not wait for input from the clients"
(Answer, page 3). The examiner admits that Hideaki does not
specify that the clients are web browsers and applies Gralla for
why it would have been obvious for the clients to be web
browsers.
Appellants do not argue the combination of Hideaki and
Gralla nor the obviousness of clients being web browsers.
Instead, appellants contend (Brief, page 4) that "Hideaki teaches
a mechanism that allows clients to terminate connections and
obtain results later." Appellants continue that in Hideaki, a
client sends a processing request to the server and the client
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007