Ex Parte KUMPF et al - Page 3




             Appeal No. 2003-0048                                                              Page 3                
             Application No. 09/163,787                                                                              


                           identifying, by the client, peripherals having the additional function                    
                    by examining data retrieved in said step of retrieving from the list of                          
                    servers.                                                                                         


                    Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over U.S.                         
             Patent No. 6,101,528 ("Butt") and U.S. Patent No.  5,933,580 ("Uda").                                   


                                                     OPINION                                                         
                    Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we                
             address the main point of contention therebetween.  The examiner asserts, "Butt                         
             discloses the client checks (ie. [sic] retrieves) from the registration lists (ie. [sic] data           
             including that which specifies whether the servers have additional functions from                       
             servers on the list of servers having peripherals) [Butt, col. 4, lines 30-55], a second                
             registration function list and identifying, by the client, peripherals having the functions by          
             examining data retrieved in the step of retrieving from the list of servers [Butt, col. 5,              
             lines 11-42 and col. 5, line 64 - col. 6, line 4]."  (Examiner's Answer at 7.)  He admits,              
             however, that "Butt does not specifically disclose an additional function in addition to                
             peripherals with a basic function."  (Id.)  The appellants argue, "Butt totally fails to teach          
             or suggest the retrieving and identifying steps . . ., and Uda et al. fails to supply the               
             deficiency."  (Appeal Br. at 9.)                                                                        









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007