Appeal No. 2004-1082
Application No. 09/106,166
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
A claim is anticipated only when a single prior art
reference expressly or inherently discloses each and every
element or step thereof. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices
Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 7 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1988); RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 221 USPQ 385
(Fed. Cir. 1984).
With regard to the anticipation rejection based on Alonso,
as it is applied to independent claim 1, the examiner contends
that Alonso teaches, at column 2, line 20, through column 3, line
67, a system including a plurality of distributed sites wherein
each site is adapted to run at least one application (a database)
and application state information is maintained at a plurality of
local (server computer) and remote (remote computers) sites.
The examiner identifies a first command sequence, with
commands, as receiving a request for an update (i.e., a
modification) to the state information at a local site (a server
computer). The examiner contends that since the modifications
are “updates,” Alonso discloses generating an update to the state
information maintained at the local site, in response to the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007