Appeal 2006-2696 Application 10/266,954 The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show unpatentability: Seitz US 5,410,543 Apr. 25, 1995 Bravman US 5,646,389 Jul. 8, 1997 Pepe US 5,742,905 Apr. 21, 1998 The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows: 1. Claims 37, 38, 40-42, 44-61, 63, 64, and 67-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pepe and Seitz. 2. Claims 39, 65, and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pepe, Seitz, and Bravman. The rejection of claims 43 and 62 has been withdrawn (Answer 2). Claims 1-36 have been canceled. OPINION Appellant submits that claim 37 has been rejected in error. Appellant argues that the rejection has failed to point out disclosure or suggestion in the references of the final (whereby) clause of the claim, which recites, inter alia, that the midware server effectively represents the subclients as a single client. According to Appellant, the “whereby” clause is entitled to patentable weight because it does more than simply express the intended result of the steps that are positively recited. Appellant posits that the clause further defines the scope of the claim because the claim would otherwise read on a midware server that represents subclients as multiple clients or as single clients. (Br. 7-9.) 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013