Appeal No. 2006-1314
Application No. 09/823,084
21, 2005) for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellants’ brief (filed April 11,
2005) and supplemental appeal brief (filed March 7, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to appellants’
specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations that follow.
Claims 1-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being unpatentable as anticipated by Graham.
As to claims 1 through 5, we note that the appellants argue these claims as a group in p. 6
through 12 of the brief. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the group.
Graham describes a Universal Service Broker Interchange Mechanism (USBIM) as a
coordinated set of components that provide interoperability among service discovery protocols,
having service provider protocol adapter servlets that listen for service advertising requests and
look for matching service providers [col. 2 lines 22 through 35]. Thus, because each internet
service that is registered within the USBIM exists, it must have been registered with the USBIM,
further evidenced by the registration described col. 6 lines 41 through 49. The request for
service must necessarily contain metadata, which is simply data characterizing data, describing
the communication proxy associated with the request, by virtue of the request itself. This
metadata includes service, name and protocol [col. 7 lines 35 through 39] and implicitly the
proxy itself.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007