Appeal No. 2006-2723
Application No. 09/891,264
The Patent Office has asserted that the code and SIBBs of Yates modules
teach the service machine. However, according to the portions of Yates
cited by the Patent Office, the policy is either embedded in the object, or
downloaded from a policy data store 1104 shown in Fig. 11. Obviously, the
code and SIBB of Yates, constituting parts of the agents, are not included in
the policies.
(Brief, page 15).
Relying on Yates (col. 11, lines 27-30; col. 17, lines 33-37) for support, the
Examiner takes the position that Yates’ “policies” are analogous to the claimed
“service component” because the policies are responsible for reconfiguring user
terminals such that they are provided with new service functionality (answer, page
19). Further, the Examiner relies on Yates (col. 17, lines 42-67) in asserting that
Yates’ “policies” are transmitted to Yates’ SIBB—which is analogized to the
claimed service machine—where the SIBB executes the policy in order to provide
the requested service (answer, page 19). The Examiner further argues that since
the “policies” of Yates are responsible for providing personal services and are
executed by a service machine such as a SIBB, these “policies” qualify as the
claimed service component (answer, page 19).
In response, Appellant alleges that the claimed “service component” is not
met by Yates. In support of this position, Appellant argues that, “[t]o satisfy the
claimed requirements for a service component, the policies would have to be sent
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007