Appeal No. 2006-2723
Application No. 09/891,264
We observe that claims 2 and 4 are rejected over the combined system of
Yates and Beck, not just Yates alone. The Yates reference discloses transmitting
messages between objects (col. 9, lines 1-7). The addition of the Beck reference
adds a server to the system. Therefore, the messages that were sent between
objects in Yates are sent to the server in the system taught by the combination of
Yates and Beck.
Accordingly, as the Examiner has established a prima facie of obviousness,
we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claim 1, 2, and 4, as well as claims 3,
and 5-11 which are argued as falling with claim 1.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007