Appeal No. 2004-0545
Application No. 09/510,569
16 of appellants’ originally filed application, as “transfers control to the OS 25 of
the client data processing system 23.” We do not find that one of ordinary skill in
the art would recognize these steps as including, or necessarily anteceded by a
step of, decoupling the data processing system from the server data processing.
As stated supra we find that the scope of the decoupling limitation is “the data
processing system is separated apart from the server.” Accordingly, we now
enter a rejection of independent claims 1, 5, and 17 under the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Conclusion
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 8 and 17
through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being unpatentable over Rakavy.
In accordance with 37 CFR § 41.50(b), we have entered a new rejection of
claims 1 through 8 and 17 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 41.50(b) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12,
2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)). 37 CFR § 41.50(b)
provides "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be
considered final for judicial review."
37 CFR § 41.50(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the
following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid
termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007