Appeal No. 2006-2723
Application No. 09/891,264
to the terminal agent either in the same container as the module, or in a different
container” (reply brief, page 3).
Appellant further points out that the “module” disclosed by Yates does not
contain anything, but is itself a building block of executable code. “[T]here is
nothing in Yates which corresponds to a container. The modules are executable
code portions and a combination of modules may comprise an executable service
machine, no module is a ‘container’ of anything” (reply brief, page 4).
The Examiner’s answer presents a reasoned position as to the factual basis
for analogizing the “policies” and “module” of Yates to the claimed service
component and service container. There is no dispute that Yates discloses software
modules. However, there is a dispute about whether the Yates software modules
actually contain anything, or—specifically—whether they contain service
independent building blocks (SIBBs). Appellant states that the modules of Yates
do not contain anything, but are themselves building blocks of executable code
(reply brief, pages. 3-4). We agree with Appellant to the extent that the Yates
software modules are essentially building blocks of executable code, but we
disagree with the statement that they do not contain anything.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007