Appeal No. 2004-1380
Application No. 09/513,425
hindsight. We also agree with appellants that the pseudo-drivers
taught by Shearer do not teach the claimed activity driver nor
the steps performed by the activity driver.
We now consider the rejection of claim 3 based on Kampe,
Shearer and Tsai and the rejection of claims 4 and 15 based on
Kampe, Shearer and Mecklermedia. Since the rejection of these
claims relies on the same improper combination of Kampe and
Shearer discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 3 and 4 for the reasons discussed above.
We now consider the rejection of claims 5, 6, 9, 10, 13 and
14 based on Kampe and Nouri. These claims stand or fall together
as a single group [brief, page 6], and we will consider claim 5
as the representative claim for the group. With respect to
representative claim 5, the examiner finds that Kampe teaches the
claimed invention except for the step of sending the icons to a
display associated with a headless server system. The examiner
cites Nouri as teaching the remote monitoring of headless server
systems and, therefore, the association of remote displays with
headless server systems. The examiner finds that it would have
been obvious to the artisan to display Kampe’s icons on a remote
display as taught by Nouri [answer, pages 7-8].
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007