Appeal No. 2006-0979
Application No. 08/818,185
network server machine address [col. 7, lines 6-14]. We further note that
Hamilton teaches that once application program 510 has located the network
server machine, it refers to object name server 560 to find a reference to
network server 570 [col. 7, lines 15-18]. Thus, we find that Hamilton
merely teaches that a network name server may be accessed to obtain the
machine address for a network server.
Significantly, we find that the combined teachings of the Hamilton and
Kessler references do not support the examiner’s finding, as set forth in the
rejection, that an object reference is retrieved (i.e., delivered) for a Naming
Context Object, as claimed [answer, page 4, ¶1; see also instant claim 28].
We agree with appellant that the passages of Hamilton cited by the
examiner are analogous to the well known use of a Naming Context Object
to obtain an object reference for an object on a server, such that a proxy
object can be obtained [brief, page 10].
With respect to the Phillips and Cheng references that the examiner
has relied upon as support for the taking of Official Notice, we note that the
examiner has failed to point out the specific portions of these references that
support the examiner’s contention. We find that Cheng merely teaches that
an object name server implements one or more Naming Context Objects
[col. 1, lines 53-54]. We find that Phillips merely teaches the use of Object
Management Group (OMG) name binding where a “naming context” is
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007