Appeal No. 2003-0509 Page 13
Application No. 08/657,510
Claim 15 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "retreiving [sic] the
selected class package over a network if the selected class package is not stored
locally." Giving the representative claim its broadest, reasonable construction, the
limitations require retreiving a class via a network.
b. Obviousness Determination
Rodens includes a "feature that allows you to distribute build tasks over a [local
area network], p. 1; it "allows distributed builds over networks. P. 2 The reference
explains the desirability of distributing builds over a network, viz., it "lets you off-load
parts of the build onto cooperating machines, thus speeding up builds on large
development projects." P. 2. When one such cooperating machine needed access to a
class that had been off-loaded to another cooperating machine (to speed up a build), it
would have been obvious to enable the former to retrieve the class from the later via the
network. Because Rodens would have suggested retreiving a class via a network, the
teachings of Wu in this regard are cumulative. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of
claim 15 and of claims 16 and 17, which fall therewith.
Rather than separately arguing the patentability of claims 18 and 19, the
appellants rely on the aforementioned arguments for claim 15. (Appeal Br. at 11.)
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007