Appeal No. 2004-0257
Application No. 09/296,724
conclusion, the Appellant states that neither Fults nor Wilson,
either alone or in combination, discloses, teaches, or suggests
the invention as claimed; and therefore, the examiner has failed
to meet the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness.
We agree with appellant.
First, we must consider the scope of the term ‘pull
request.’ The Appellant states that a ‘pull request’ is “a
request that is issued spontaneously from the user interface
controller module to the application module.”5 We find, in view
of the specification, as well as the drawings, that this is the
proper definition of the term as intended and disclosed by the
Appellant at the time of filing.
Although we agree with the examiner that the broadest
interpretation of the term ‘generating a pull request’ only
requires the generation of a request, the remainder of the claim
and the definition within the specification modifies the broad
meaning of the term. Claim 1 of the application requires that
the “interface controller module [is] arranged for generating a
Substitute Appeal Brief, page 7, lines 7-8
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007