Appeal No. 2006-1785 Page 12
Application No. 10/768,827
Appellants argue that McLain does not teach the following recited
limitations:
obtaining a response associated with said request from a data source, said
data source containing a plurality of requests acceptable to said target
computing system and a plurality of responses, each acceptable request being
associated with a response that describes the expected behavior of said
target computing system upon receiving said acceptable request [claim 26];
In particular, appellants argue that McLain’s command response table
(fig. 14) only includes responses and does not teach requests [brief, page
19]. Appellants further argue that the commands disclosed in the command
response table are not requests [brief, page 20, ¶2, emphasis added]. The
examiner disagrees and points to indexes to the command response table as
corresponding to requests [answer, page 20; see also McLain col. 9, line 12
and col. 10, line 6]. Appellants note that very rarely would the index to a
table be the same value as stored in the indexed entry in the table [reply
brief, page 9]. We note that the examiner appears to contradict himself as
he further explicitly corresponds McLain’s commands as disclosed in the
command response table as teaching the claimed requests [answer, page
21, lines 2 and 3].
Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue
“reads on” a prior art reference. Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco, Inc., 190 F 3d
1342, 1346, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1945 (Fed. Cir. 1999) citing Titanium Metals
Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 781, 227 USPQ 773, 778 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007