Appeal No. 2006-1802 Page 5
Application No. 09/785,918
server side,” as one of the clients and the server being located on the same local network
(answer-page 4). Therefore, the examiner concludes that there is a client on the server
side of the client server communication protocol in Picazo, and that it would have been
obvious to combine Quatrano and Picazo to connect one of the clients on the server side
“because it would improve said client’s response time” (answer-page 4).
We REVERSE.
We agree that Quatrano describes the instant claimed subject matter but for a
client being on the server side of the client server communication protocol. We also
agree that Picazo describes a client being on the server side of a client server
communication protocol. Where we disagree with the examiner is in the motivation that
would have led the artisan to modify Quatrano in such a manner as to place a client on
the server side of the client server communication protocol.
Merely because all of the elements, or steps, of a claim are shown in different
prior art references does not, per se, make it obvious, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§103, to combine these teachings, or to modify the disclosure of one reference with a
teaching of another. In the instant case, the examiner has not articulated a reason, other
than a mere general assertion about improving a client’s response time, for modifying the
structure of Quatrano to place one of the clients on the server side of the client server
communication protocol. We find no evidence, and the examiner has pointed to nothing,
which would indicate that changing the position of one client to the server side would, in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007