Appeal No. 2003-1225
Application No. 09/223,765
Appellants’ arguments for dependent claims 2, 3, and 4 also appear to rely on
the reference’s failure to contain an “ipsissimis verbis” description of the invention.
Appellants do not persuade us of any difference in substance between what may be
required by the claims and the disclosure of Carroll. In particular, pointing out
unclaimed features in the disclosure does nothing to show error in the rejection.
With respect to claim 2, appellants do not explain why a multi-threaded service
supervisor that is “launched by the vsSupervisor Service function” should be considered
any different from the multi-threaded service supervisor described by Carroll. We do
not see any reason, on this record, why it would be relevant that the specification
describes the “service functions” as also performing other, unclaimed, functions.
We can agree, with respect to the arguments regarding claim 3, that Carroll does
not expressly describe opening a socket connection on a TCP/IP port. The claim
requires, however, a communications supervisor running as a thread for conducting
communications between user dedicated vault processes and the user. The rejection
relies, in part, on column 6, lines 26 through 30 of Carroll, which discloses that vault
process supervisor (VPS) 52 (Fig. 2) communicates with the connection secure server
54, starts the vault processes 50, and maintains communications between the vault
processes 50 and the user’s browsers 58. We agree with appellants to the extent that
Carroll does not contain the literal string “vsSupervisor Initialize function,” but we agree
with the examiner that VPS 52 does what claim 3 requires of the communication
supervisor.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007