Appeal No. 2005-1431
Application 09/442,070
clear that the last definition of "workstation," which refers to a network microcomputer or
terminal, is the only appropriate one. This interpretation is consistent with the Doyle patent,
which explains: "Typically, a computer on the Internet is characterized as either a 'client' or
'server' depending on the role that the computer is playing with respect to requesting information
or providing information. Client computers are computers that typically request information
from a server computer which provides the information." Doyle, col. 4, ll. 32-37. In contrast, all
of the uses of "client" in appellants' patent are consistent with the first paragraph of definitions of
that term, which apply to computer processes. See, e.g., column 8, line 7 ("client window 304"),
column 8, line 28 ("client window 404"), column 8, lines 50-51 ("a container (or client)
application"), column 50, lines 27-29 ("each containee object in a container is associated with a
client site in the container object"), and column 32, lines 42-43 ("the function invokes the
SetClientSite method of the containee object").
We therefore agree with the examiner that the term "client workstation" in claims 40 and
50 refers to a network workstation and thus lacks written description support in appellants' patent
for the reasons given in the discussion of the "network" limitations.
Attachment C to the brief is a proposed amendment filed pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(c)39
to (1) amend claim 50 by replacing "client workstation" with "computer" and (2) add new
39 Section 1.196(c), which was replaced effective September 13, 2004, by 37 CFR
§ 41.50(c), read as follows:
(c) Should the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
include an explicit statement that a claim may be allowed in amended form,
appellant shall have the right to amend in conformity with such statement which
(Continued on next page.)
44
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007