Appeal No. 2003-1031 Page 6
Application No. 09/050,841
the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we address the following points
of contention therebetween:
• non-cooperating domains
• client and server
• proprietary protocol.
1. Non-cooperating Domains
The examiner finds, "Rosenberg discloses . . . sharing said state information
between said first domain and said second domain, wherein said first domain and said
second domain are non-cooperating domains, said non-cooperating domains having no
knowledge of one another and wherein said non-cooperating domains do not directly
communicate states information (see page 4, lines 18-27, page 7, lines 1-8 and
lines 20-23 distinct domains).” (Examiner's Answer at 2-3.) The appellants argue, "[i]n
Rosenberg, state information is shared across cooperating domains, and not across
non-cooperating domains." (Supp. Appeal Br. at 9.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the representative claim at issue to determine its scope. Second, we
determine whether the construed claim would have been obvious.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007