Appeal 2006-3356
Application 10/244,722
we have noted, the literal term “MFS” does not represent a patentable
distinction on this record.
Appellants submit (Br. 8) that Najmi fails to teach translating a client
request to MFS using an external reference pointer to a MFS source file, as
recited in claim 20. The claim recites translating the client request to MFS
“using at least one external reference pointer to a MFS source file . . . .”
Najmi describes (col. 8, ll. 13-30) a message adaptor 408 (Fig. 4) that
reformats a received message to a form expected by a partner system, based
upon information stored in a B2B schema database 410. Najmi thus teaches
translating a client request using information in a database. The teaching is
sufficient to demonstrate the obviousness of using an external reference
pointer to a source file. We agree with Appellants to the extent that Najmi
does not use the literal term “MFS” as an exemplary format, but the artisan
would have appreciated that the method described by Najmi was not limited
by the particular source and destination formats for translation.
With respect to claim 9, Appellants argue (Br. 9) that the Examiner’s
finding of a motivation from the prior art for combining the teachings of
Najmi and Kuno is without any supporting citation to the prior art. Najmi,
however, teaches client requests comprising extensible mark-up language
(XML) documents -- e.g., column 6, lines 14 through 16 and column 8, lines
32 through 45 -- which is sufficient to show unpatentability of the claim.
CONCLUSION
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments but are not persuaded
that any claim has been rejected in error. We sustain the rejection of claims
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013