Appeal No. 2006-2193
Application 09/751,823
anonymity such as is recited in independent claims 25 and 26 on appeal.
These two claims require that the client and the network host maintain
anonymity from each other. Because of this, these two claims do not require
that the client and host be dissimilar from each other as set forth in
independent claims 1, 12 and 17 on appeal. Claim 25 recites that the
payload be associated with the task, whereas claim 26 does not recite this
feature. On the one hand, while claim 26 recites the use of the agent, there is
only a broadly recited process in independent claim 25. Therefore, many of
the arguments presented by appellant in the brief are not coextensive with
the actual features recited in the claims on appeal, thus in effect buttressing
the examiner’s positions of unpatentability.
With respect to May, we agree with the examiner’s views expressed
as to this reference beginning with the background discussion at columns 1
through 4 relating to the extensive prior art discussion there relating to the
need for anonymity in financial transactions or brokerage systems conducted
in an electronic environment. In fact, column 5, lines 20 through 47 address
prior art deficiencies in the major objects of the invention focusing on
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007