Appeal No. 2004-2155
Application No. 09/562,641 Page 10
This disclosure refers to run code for the server, not the
client-side component. Moreover, we find that Rogers does not
teach applying the definition information, upon receipt, to the
client-side component because in Rogers, all processing of data
is performed on the server (col. 11, lines 7 and 8).
In sum, from all of the above, we find that Rogers does not
meet all of the limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
Independent claim 24 recites the same limitation as claim 1:
. . . a server-side data access component for
retrieving definition information for run-time
operation of the client-side component, said definition
information including a database query specifying
retrieval of information from a database and a format
specification specifying presentation of the
information received from the database to the end user
. . .
The rejection of claim 24, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), as well as
the rejection of claims 2-8, 11-14, 16-29, 32 and 33, dependent
therefrom, is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 9, 10, 15, 30, 31
and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rogers
in view of Sarkar. We cannot sustain the rejection of claims 9,
10, 15, 31 and 34 because the examiner has not shown, nor do we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007