Appeal 2007-0226
Application 09/823,866
The Examiner lastly finds that Schmidt teaches "means for using a
component framework (wrapper façade implemented as frameworks such as
ACE) to enable the communication (forward client invocations) of the at
least two objects [page 4, sections 2.7, 2.8; page 6, section 'The socket
wrapper façade']" (Final Rejection 2).
As to the limitation of "two objects in separate and distinct server
locations" in claim 1, the Examiner finds (Final Rejection 2-3): "[I]n a
client/server configuration, a client request[s] a service and the server
provides the service. An object is a client to one object and is a server to
another object." The Examiner finds that Konrad teaches a client/server
relationship between objects (id. at 3). The Examiner concludes that
"[w]hen the teachings are combined, a client machine of Schmidt would
have behaved as both a client machine/host and a server machine/host, and
therefore the two communicating objects would have been located on
separate and distinct server locations/machines" (id.).
While the Examiner's application of Konrad is not exactly clear,
especially the client/server discussion, Konrad discloses communication
between a local host (which can be a multi-user system, i.e., a server) and a
remote host (which is a server). Both hosts have objects that are in
communication. We interpret the rejection to be that it would have been
obvious for the client in Schmidt to be a server or to add a server in Schmidt
in view of the server to server communication in Konrad.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013