Ex Parte Kappel et al - Page 2



                Appeal 2007-0226                                                                                  
                Application 09/823,866                                                                            
                                               BACKGROUND                                                         
                       The claims are directed to providing object to object communication                        
                in a networking environment.                                                                      
                       Claim 1 is illustrative:                                                                   
                              1.  A system for providing object to object communication,                          
                       comprising:                                                                                
                              means for identifying at least two objects in separate and                          
                       distinct server locations from a plurality of objects to communicate;                      
                              means for locating the at least two objects to communicate; and                     
                              means for using a component framework to enable the                                 
                       communication of the at least two objects.                                                 

                                             THE REFERENCES                                                       
                       Konrad                    US 5,544,320               Aug. 6, 1996                         
                       Foody                     US 5,732,270               Mar. 24, 1998                        
                       Douglas C. Schmidt, Wrapper Facade: A Structural Pattern for                               
                       Encapsulating Functions within Classes, C++ Report Magazine,                               
                       February 1999, pages 1-10.                                                                 

                                              THE REJECTIONS                                                      
                       Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16-19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under                             
                35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schmidt and Konrad.                                       
                       Claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                        
                unpatentable over Schmidt and Konrad, further in view of Foody.                                   
                                                        2                                                         



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013