Appeal No. 2003-0873
Application No. 08/896,245 Page 6
been obvious to move the subtask of saving session data, to be a
subtask of the CGI program because the session manager’s
preservation subtask is functionally equivalent to the claimed
retentive feature in the persistent CGI apparatus (answer, pages
4 and 9).
Appellants assert that essential to all appealed claims is a
recitation of a CGI program (brief, page 6). Appellants dispute
the examiner’s contention that Smith’s “session manager” is or is
equivalent to appellants’ claimed “persistent CGI program” (id.).
Relying on Fig. 3, appellants’ contend Smith’s session manager is
a process downstream of the claimed persistent CGI program, and
fails to conform with necessary protocol to communicate with a
browser (brief, page 8). Appellants admit that Smith discloses a
persistent session manager and contains a CGI program which
handles the transactional interface with a browser; however,
appellants argue that the examiner improperly equated this
downstream process to their claimed persistent CGI process
because the reference is lacking any suggestion to apply
persistent concepts to the CGI program (brief, page 9).
Appellants further argue that, applying the examiner’s reasoning,
if one were to modify Smith to provide a persistent CGI program,
this would require doing away with the session manager which
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007