Appeal No. 2006-2723
Application No. 09/891,264
“interface” (answer, page 14) for the first service container, i.e., the “modules”
(answer, page 15). The Examiner further argues that Yates discloses that the
claimed service machine executes a service component such as the “rules” or
“policies” (answer, page 15). The Examiner relies on Beck for teaching a service
server that transmits a service container to a service computer. The Examiner
explains that it would have been an obvious enhancement of Yates to incorporate
therein the concept of a server to transmit Yates’s modules to the agents (answer,
page 15, line 22 through page 16, line 2).
Our discussion will first focus on Appellant’s arguments directed to whether
the claimed features are taught by the combination of Yates and Beck. We will
then turn to arguments directed at the combinability of Yates and Beck. Finally,
we will discuss Appellant’s arguments directed to dependent claims 2 and 4.
1. Whether the combination of Yates and Beck teaches or suggests all the
claimed features
Appellant alleges that Yates does not teach “service component” limitation
required by claim 1. Appellant states the following in support of his position:
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007