Appeal No. 2004-1827 Page 6
Application No. 09/467,396
Appellants assert (id.) that Kohl “does not teach or suggest
electronically providing a customer compatible executable that is
compiled from pre-existing source code that includes inserted
customer specific message provided by a customer in a customer
specification.”
The examiner responds (answer, page 8) by acknowledging that
Kohl “does not use the word ‘source code’ [, or] ‘message’,” but
reiterates his position that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to extend Kohl to disclose that source
code may includes “customer specific messages provided by a
customer in a customer specification.”
In reply, appellant asserts (reply brief, page 3) that the
examiner has cited no prior art reference to support his
assertion that the appellants system would have been obvious in
view of Kohl, when combined with the knowledge generally
available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
From our review of Kohl, we find that Kohl teaches a system
“that allows end users to create applications on the Web” (col.
4, lines 54-55). The system contains an application development
environment on the web, along with “an interpretive server and
proprietary databases” (col. 4, lines 56-58). The “proprietary
databases are used to store information pertaining to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007