Appeal No. 2006-0979
Application No. 08/818,185
In response, the examiner argues that Hamilton, as modified by
Kessler, teaches a method and apparatus for enabling application programs
(e.g., a web browser) to invoke objects within network servers that have
different network protocols, e.g., a document server downloads Object
Request Brokers (ORBs) and network protocols to application programs, thus
enabling application programs to invoke objects within network servers, as
taught by Hamilton at col. 2 line 40 through col. 3, line 25; col. 7, lines 3-52
and col. 9, lines 25-35 [answer, page 8]. The examiner notes that Kessler
teaches a Java ORB which provides a “zero install client” [answer, page 9].
The examiner concludes that it is obvious that the prior art teaches the
process of obtaining the Interface Definition Language (IDL) object reference
for the “zero install client” [id.].
At the outset, we note that to reach a proper conclusion under § 103,
the examiner, as finder of fact, must step backward in time and into the
mind of a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time when the invention was
unknown, and just before it was made. In light of all the evidence, we
review the specific factual determinations of the examiner to ascertain
whether the examiner has convincingly established that the claimed
invention as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the invention to
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007