Appeal No. 2004-0228
Application No. 09/348,411
In the examiner’s explanation of the rejection, at pages 3-4
of the answer, the examiner contends, with regard to independent
claims 1, 8 and 26, that Hoyle teaches the claimed subject matter
but for a client window that is displayed continuously as long as
the communication channel is maintained. But, the examiner finds
that it would have been obvious to implement the continuous
displaying of the client window as long as the communication
channel is maintained. “Motivation of the implementation is for
continuously maintaining the communication interface window for
communicating with the client” (answer-page 3).
Appellants assert that Hoyle fails to teach the claimed
“client application establishing a communication channel from the
local device to the online service” recited in claim 1 and,
analogously, in claims 8 and 26.
In particular, appellants point to column 8, lines 53-63, of
the reference to show that Hoyle teaches that a client
application may be used to download and install software but that
this “in no way teaches or suggests establishing a connection
with a server.” It is appellants’ position that this portion of
Hoyle implies the prior existence of a connection, so that it
cannot suggest that a client application establishes a
communication channel from the local device to the online
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007