Appeal No. 2006-1314
Application No. 09/823,084
Graham’s service provider protocol adapter servlets on the invention’s communication proxy
provided to a broker. Therefore we find the appellants’ arguments unpersuasive and sustain the
rejection as to claims 1 through 5.
As to claims 6, 10 through 12 and 17 through 19, we note that the appellants argue these
claims as a group in p. 12 through 15 of the brief. Accordingly, we select claim 6 as
representative of the group. The appellants essentially make the same arguments as to claims 1
through 5, which are unpersuasive for the same reasons as above. The appellants further argue
that Graham does not download the proxy from a location specified by the metadata [Brief, p.
14]. The examiner responds that this is necessarily inherent by operation of such a proxy
[Answer, p. 13].
We note that Graham’s USBIM operates by means of servlets, which are programs that must
inherently be loaded, i.e. downloaded from their storage, to operate. We note that the claims do
not specify the source or destination of downloading, other than being from a location specified
by the metadata. Because Graham’s metadata necessarily specifies the protocol that must be
used, USBIM inherently interprets this as a pointer to the location of the servlet’s storage for
loading.
Accordingly we are persuaded that the examiner is correct that Graham does download the
proxy from a location specified by the metadata, this being necessarily inherent by operation of
such a proxy. Therefore we find the appellants’ arguments unpersuasive and sustain the
rejection as to claims 6, 10 through 12 and 17 through 19.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007