Appeal 2006-2696
Application 10/266,954
The remainder of the independent claims recite similar limitations to
those of claim 37 and claim 75, either within a “whereby” clause (claims 47,
53, 57, 64, 67, and 71) or not (claims 73 and 74), none of which are shown
to be disclosed or suggested by the applied prior art.
The Examiner does, however, in the “Response to Argument” section
of the Answer, assert that Pepe teaches a midware server representing
subclients as a single client to an enterprise management system. (Answer
14-15.) We agree with Appellant (Reply Br. 6-7) that the identified sections
of Pepe, relating to message format conversion and delivery between various
devices on wireline and wireless networks, fail to teach a midware server
representing subclients as a single client to an enterprise management
system.
Bravman as applied in combination against dependent claims 39, 65,
and 66 does not remedy the basic deficiencies in the rejection over Pepe and
Seitz. Because the rejection fails to show disclosure or suggestion of all the
limitations of any independent claim on appeal, we do not sustain the
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 37-42, 44-61, and 63-75.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013