Appeal No. 2003-1873
Application 09/281,420
references fail to teach, “generating the merged response . . .
at other than the at least some merged clients responding to the
query request.” (Brief at page 11) We agree. We have fully
reviewed the references and find nothing that corresponds to the
generating of merged responses recited in claim 3.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
III. Whether the Rejection of Claims 19-21, 26, 45-47 and 52
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims
19-21, 26, 45-47 and 52. Accordingly, we affirm.
With respect to independent claim 26, Appellants repeat the
arguments made with respect to claim 24. As discussed above with
respect to claim 24, we do not find those arguments persuasive.
Claim 26 only requires that the request structure include some
unique identifier for use in a fault tolerant method. Bishop
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007