Appeal No. 2003-0048 Page 6
Application No. 09/163,787
the additional function. As aforementioned, the examiner relies on three passages of
Butts. He asserts that the first passage "discloses the client checks (ie. [sic] retrieves)
from the registration lists. . . ." (Examiner's Answer at 7.) The passage, however,
merely mentions that a "client discovery service 20 includes a first registration
function 52 for registering the discovery callback procedures of client
applications 18. . . ." Col. 4, ll. 32-24. The examiner asserts that the second and third
passages teach "identifying, by the client, peripherals having the functions by examining
data retrieved in the step of retrieving from the list of servers. . . ." (Examiner's Answer
at 7.) The second passage, however, merely describes the components of a "discovery
response packet 100. . . ." Col. 5, ll. 11-12. For its part, the third passage merely
discloses that a "server application 24a/24b calls second registration function 58 to
register itself with server discovery services 26a/ 26b. . . ." Col. 5, ll. 65-67. "As part of
the registration process, server application 24a/ 24b provides at least its identifier, the
socket or port through which a client application should conduct subsequent
communication, and the maximum datagram size." Col. 5, l. 67 - col. 6, l. 4.
Agreeing with the appellants that "Uda et al. has nothing at all to do with the
discovery of peripheral servers," (Appeal Br. at 9), we are not persuaded that the
addition of the reference cures the aforementioned deficiency of Butts. Absent a
teaching or suggestion that a client form a list of servers connected to peripherals
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007