Appeal No. 2006-0979
Application No. 08/818,185
on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of
the arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ
785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
GROUP I, claims 1-9, 11 and 15-32
I. We consider first the examiner’s rejection of the claims in Group I. We
note that the examiner has rejected claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 15-32 as
being unpatentable over Hamilton in view of Kessler, and further in view of
the examiner’s taking of Official Notice, relying upon Cheng and Phillips.
However, the examiner has rejected claims 5 and 8, also within Group I, as
being unpatentable over Hamilton in view of Kessler, and further in view of
Tang. Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004), we
will select independent claim 28 as the representative claim because it is the
broadest independent claim in Group I.
Appellant notes that the independent claims in Group I (i.e., claims 1,
7, 21 and 28) recite the basic concept of delivering an object reference for a
Naming Context Object (NCO) to a client after that client has contacted or
requested the object reference from a server [brief, page 8]. Appellant
argues that this feature is not disclosed or suggested by the combination of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007