Appeal No. 2006-2193
Application 09/751,823
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer, as amplified
and emphasized here, we sustain the rejection of all claims on appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
In the first stated rejection, appellant presents arguments as to each
independent claim 1, 12, 17, 25 and 26 collectively. Independent claims 1,
12 and 17 require that the host be unknown to and dissimilar from the
network client. On the other hand, independent claim 12, which perhaps
appears to be the broadest claim on appeal, does not require that the server
create an agent as in independent claim 1, nor does it require that the
payload from a client relate to a task. The client merely requests a process
execution rather than to request a process execution associated with a task as
in claim 1. As to independent claim 17, this claim does require the creation
of an agent from the payload but there is no task associated with the process
execution from the client. In contrast to that which is extensively argued in
the brief, independent claims 1, 12 and 17 do not explicitly recite the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007