Appeal No. 2004-0587
Application 09/054,304
related supporting operations or functions have yet to be
positively claimed. See pages 10 and 11 of the answer. The
Examiner argues that the problem has arisen since unclaimed
protocol is disclosed starting at the last paragraph on page 11
through the end of the first paragraph on page 14. The Examiner
believes that this is what the Appellants have attempted to
cover, however, the protocol has not been recited in the claims.
See pages 8 and 9 of the answer.
Appellants state that the Appellants appreciate the
Examiner’s effort to identify allowable subject matter. However,
Appellants argue that 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, does not
require the Appellants to recite narrow claims which would recite
the additional step of using a pseudo acknowledgments. See pages
9 and 10 of the reply brief.
Turning to the claims, we note that claims 1 and 4 through
10 recite “a method of managing a client request in a client-
server network having a client, a first server, and a second
server, the method comprising:” followed by method steps.
Similarly, we note that Appellants’ claims 11 and 14 through 19
recite “a system for managing a client request in a client-
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007