Appeal No. 2006-2723
Application No. 09/891,264
Therefore, although Appellant is correct that the “software modules” of
Yates are themselves executable blocks of code, this does not answer the question
of whether these modules contain anything. We are persuaded by the Examiner’s
position that the software modules contain individual blocks of code, since the
hierarchical structure of the Yates arrangement shows that—as the claim
requires—the smaller blocks of individual code are encapsulated in a larger
module.
Turning next to the “communication means” limitation of claim 1, Appellant
alleges that neither Yates nor Beck teaches the claimed communication means
(brief, page 16). Appearing in the preamble and the second paragraph of the body
of the claim, however, we observe that the term “communication means” simply
requires a connection to a network and the receipt of personal services. After
stating that the “communication means” is not taught by either reference, Appellant
proceeds to argue aspects of the Beck reference and concludes that “Beck fails to
teach or suggest the transmission of the service container of the claimed invention”
(brief, page 16).
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007