Appeal No. 2006-1785 Page 9
Application No. 10/768,827
similarly in claim 15 [brief, page 13]. Appellants further argue that Bodamer
does not disclose “responding as described by said response associated with
said request,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly in claim 15 [brief, page 16].
The examiner disagrees [answer, page 18]. The examiner asserts that
Bodamer teaches responses describing the expected behavior of the target
computing system in response to the requests at col. 8, lines 13-21 [id.].
The examiner asserts that Bodamer further teaches the requests being
acceptable to the target system at col. 7, lines 8-11 [id.]. The examiner
asserts that fig. 2 of Bodamer clearly shows multiple data sources (Database
Server 202 and Source for Client Routine(s) 220) [id.]. The examiner notes
that Bodamer states that the source files are archived into a library and this
library is accessed to generate the substitute routines based on a template
at col. 6, lines 23-24 and 55-58, and col. 7 lines 63-67 [id.]. The examiner
concludes that it is clear that the data source contains the substitute
routines (i.e., responses) and is accessed based on the template, which
necessarily includes the acceptable requests as outlined in Bodamer at col.
7, lines 8-11 [id.].
We begin by construing the recited terms “request” and “response” by
according these terms the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification. We note that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
has determined that “the specification is the ‘single best guide to the
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007