Appeal No. 2006-2700
Application No. 10/705,456
executable service functions, wherein said function-
specific response is associated with one of said
generic executable service functions and includes said
device information.
We note at paragraph 53, Appellants’ specification states
the following:
[0053] The service provider server 150 (more
specifically, framework service 360) is next operative,
in block 425, to determine which service to use to
respond to the received service request comprising the
feature/concepts. Next, in block 430, the service
provider server 150 formulates one or more service
requests for one or more service vendors, and sends the
service request (or requests) to the vendor server (or
servers) 160 that were determined in block 425. At each
vendor server 160 the service request is responded to
in block 435, with the response being directed back to
the service provider server 150. In subroutine block
900, the service provider server 150 handles received
service results.
Thus, the claim does require processing a plurality of
function-specific parameters pertaining to a wireless mobile device
to thereby generate a function-specific response to a submitted
request.
Now, the question before us is what Shapiro, Fisher and Jones
would have taught to one of ordinary skill in the art? To answer
this question, we find the following facts:
1. At paragraph 68, Shapiro states the following:
[M]ultiple web servers may be present to receive
requests from client computers and broker the requests
to application servers, the web server may itself
interface directly with a database, application servers
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013