Appeal No. 2004-1082
Application No. 09/106,166
Appellants attempt to distinguish Alonso’s confirmations
from the claimed “notification,” at page 4 of the principal
brief, arguing that confirmations are performed synchronously in
response to a particular request or action which has been taken,
and that such confirmations are always received by the party
initiating the request or action, while a notification is an
autonomous message in the sense that the party receiving the
notification may not be the same entity initiating the action
corresponding to the notification. We are unpersuaded as this
argument is based on limitations not appearing in the instant
claims. Moreover, it is unclear as to the evidence being relied
on by appellants for this distinction since the instant
specification makes no such distinction regarding notification
modes constituting autonomous messages.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Alonso. We will also
sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) since appellants do not separately argue the merits of
these claims, considering them to stand or fall with independent
claim 1 (see pages 3 and 5 of the principal brief).
We will, however, not sustain the rejection of claims 2-6
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based on Alonso. These claims require a
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007