Appeal No. 2005-0004
Application No. 09/135,230
We are not convinced by these arguments for the reasons stated supra with
respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 21 and the
claims grouped with claim 21 in group C, claims 22 through 27.
Rejection of claims in Group D (claims 38 through 41).
On pages 8 and 9 of the brief, appellants present arguments directed to the
rejection of claim 38, asserting that neither Gauvin nor Little teach or suggest accessing
a configuration table that is stored locally. As discussed supra with respect to claim 1,
we find that combination of Gauvin and Little teaches that a database containing the
configuration data is stored on the client machine. Gauvin teaches on that the client is a
mobile device (see figure 1, item 110 which is described as a mobile client).
Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 38 and the claims grouped
with claim 38 in group D, claims 39 through 42.
Rejection of claims in Group E (claims 42, 44 and 46).
Appellants argue, on pages 11 and 12 of the brief, “Neither Gauvin et al. nor
Little et al. teaches or suggests that connection information, to be stored in the
configuration table, is received at the client device over a network.”
In response, the examiner asserts, on page 6 of the answer, “Little clearly
teaches downloading the connection information for storage on the client device. (see
col. 4, lines 12-16).”
While we agree with the examiner, Little teaches downloading the connection
information, the download is to the gateway, item 12, figure 1, and not the client device
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007