Appeal No. 2006-0979
Application No. 08/818,185
defined as an object that contains a set of “name bindings” in which each
name is unique and every object has a unique object ID or reference [col. 8,
lines 50-53]. We note that the appellant has conceded that it is well known
for a Naming Context Object to be used to obtain object references for other
objects [brief, page 9, ¶3]. However, we find that the use of a Naming
Context Object to obtain object references for other objects fails to meet the
language of the representative claim that specifically requires retrieving an
object reference for a naming context object from a server apparatus [claim
28].
We further note that the examiner has failed to set forth a convincing
line of reasoning to establish why an artisan would have been motivated at
the time of the invention to combine the Hamilton and Kessler references
with the examiner’s finding that it is well known in the art that a Naming
Context Object is located on the object name server [answer, page 4].
Accordingly, because Phillips and Cheng fail to make up for the deficiencies
of Hamilton and Kessler, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 28. We note that each of independent claims 1, 7, 21,
and 28 recites the equivalent limitation of retrieving (or “delivering” or
“creating” and “downloading”) an object reference for a Naming Context
Object. We agree with appellant that this limitation is not fairly taught nor
suggested by the references relied upon by the examiner. Because claims
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007