Appeal No. 2003-2074
Application No. 09/095,325
appear that the reply message originated at the first address
associated with the host system” (Paper No. 25-page 3).
The examiner recognizes that the instant specification, at
page 8, lines 1-7, and page 20, line 21 through page 21, line 13,
describes a reply message configured to be transparent to the
message recipient. However, the examiner explains that the
“first paragraph points out a client can have a virtual session
with the host system. The second paragraph points out the client
controller optimizes the reply message by calculating a
difference using a delta routine between the reply message and
the preceding message. It is to have an optimized reply to be
smaller than a normal reply message to provide significant
savings to the client in time and costs” (Paper No. 25-pages 3-
4).
The examiner then goes on to contend that the skilled
artisan would not have recognized that appellants had possession
of the invention as now claimed, at the time of filing the
application. The examiner concludes this because “an explicit
limitation (i.e. a first address at or associated to the host
system as seen from the plurality of clients as the address of
the mobile client) in a claim is not present in the written
description...The virtual session and the optimizing a reply
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007