Appeal No. 2004-0559
Application No. 09/276,382
Further, on page 9 of the answer the examiner states:
The recording service 20 stands-in the path of the event transmission as an
object equivalent to the claimed proxy consumer object. This recording
component is a first level filter object that clearly constitutes a proxy object as
recited.
We disagree with the examiner. Claim 1 includes the limitation “a plurality of
proxy consumer objects, each associated with one of said consumer objects and
between said filter object and said supplier object, whereby said proxy consumer object
may receive supplier transmitted events on behalf of its associated consumer object.”
Independent claims 5, 8 and 11 contain similar limitations. Thus, each independent
claim includes the limitation that each proxy consumer object is associated with one of
the consumer objects. We concur with the examiner that Cohen teaches an event
service system that includes an event recording service2 located between the event
suppliers (items 24) and the event consumers (items 26). However, the examiner has
not shown, nor do we find, that Cohen teaches or suggests an association between
each of the event consumers and the plurality of elements in the event recording
service. Thus, the examiner has not provided an objective teaching that suggests the
claimed subject matter. Accordingly we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
2 Event recording service, item 20 is shown as a box in figure 2 and depicted in component parts,
audit trails (items 34) and service log files (items 36), in figure 3. See also column 6, lines 4-7.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007