Appeal No. 2004-1380
Application No. 09/513,425
Appellants argue that neither Kampe nor Nouri teaches or
suggests sending an icon to a display associated with a headless
server system. Appellants argue that the display of Nouri is
associated with a client computer rather than a headless server
system [brief, page 10].
The examiner responds that the claimed association only
requires that some relationship exist that reasonably links the
display to the headless server system. The examiner asserts that
the displays of Nouri are “associated” with the headless server
system as broadly interpreted [answer, pages 12-13].
Appellants respond that Nouri clearly discloses that the
screen displays of Figures 15-19 are seen at a client’s computer,
not a server system [reply brief, pages 3-4].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 9,
10, 13 and 14 for essentially the reasons argued by the examiner
in the answer. We agree with the examiner that appellants’
argument that the displays of Nouri are seen at the client
computer does not overcome the rejection. As noted by the
examiner, claim 5 only recites that the display is associated
with a headless server system. There is no requirement in the
claim regarding the physical location of the display. The
examiner is correct that even though the displays of Nouri are
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007