Appeal No. 2006-0979
Application No. 08/818,185
Hamilton and Kessler, nor by any of the other references cited by the
examiner [id.]. Appellant asserts that Hamilton and Kessler disclose
essentially the same subject matter as a number of other prior art
references utilized by the examiner in previous Office Actions [id.].
Appellant asserts that the examiner is focusing on the language in these
references related to obtaining object references from a Naming Context
Object, rather than obtaining an object reference for the Naming Context
Object itself, which is the subject of the Group I claims [brief, page 9,
emphasis added]. Appellant further asserts that the cited references all
discuss, at most, how a Naming Context Object is used to obtain object
references for other objects [id.]. Appellant notes that this is the well known
purpose of a Naming Context Object [id.]. Appellant argues that the
references do not disclose precisely how an object reference for the Naming
Context Object is obtained for the purpose of retrieving a proxy object for
the NCO, whereby the proxy object facilitates further usage of the NCO in a
standard CORBA environment [id.]. Appellant concludes that none of the
passages in Hamilton cited by the examiner disclose delivering an object
reference for a Naming Context Object to a “zero install client” after the
“zero install client” has contacted a server, contrary to the examiner's
assertion [id.].
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007