Appeal No. 2006-0979
Application No. 08/818,185
In response, the examiner notes the prior art teaches the use of an
Object Request Broker for handling object references and conversions
between strings (i.e., “stringified object references”) [answer, page 9]. The
examiner further notes that the applications communicate with the ORB to
convert and de-convert object references to “stringified object references”
(Tang, col. 12, lines 40-60) [id.]. The examiner concludes that it is obvious
that the ORB converts or formats “stringified object references” as a format
for the object reference and for use by the ORB naming service [id.].
We agree with the examiner that Tang teaches the use of “stringified
object references” and associated conversions between strings and object
references [Tang, col. 12, lines 46-60]. However, we do not agree with the
examiner that the combination of Hamilton, Kessler, and Tang meets the
language of the representative claim that specifically requires: “a web
server, said web server having access to a stringified object reference for
said naming context object, wherein said web server downloads said
stringified object reference to a web browser when said stringified object
reference is requested by said web browser” [claim 33, emphasis added].
We agree with appellant that this limitation is not fairly taught nor suggested
by the references relied upon by the examiner. Therefore, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of representative claim 33 for essentially
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007