Appeal No. 2006-2193
Application 09/751,823
This last analysis leads into the discussion that the examiner begins
with in the responsive arguments in the answer at the bottom of page 6.
Because we agree with the examiner’s views expressed here and the context
of the claims as viewed by the examiner as set forth here initially through
the motivation analysis, we reproduce here a good part of the responsive
arguments of the answer (pages 6 through 9) which also address appellant’s
combinability arguments between Kraft and May set forth between pages 5
and 7 of the brief:
Claims 1, 12 and 17 recite the limitation to “forward the agent
to a network host, unknown to and dissimilar from the network
client.” Claims 25 and 26 recite the limitation “a network client and
network host maintained anonymous from each other for receiving a
payload from the network client.” No other limitations regarding the
anonymity of the network devices is given in any of the claims. The
examiner interprets these items, then, to mean anonymity between the
client and host from the time that the network server forwards the
agent and/or payload, to the time that the host receives the
transmission. To fulfill the limitation, one need not show maintaining
of anonymity at any time after the reception of the payload, and
particularly not during any time of the process execution associated
with the agent. Further, one need not show anonymity between the
server and the host or between the server and the client. (Final action,
Para. 9).
In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to
show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the
features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “anonymity is maintained
between a client and a host (P. 4, lines 20-23)”) are not recited in the
rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the
specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007