Appeal 2007-0226
Application 09/823,866
age, and since there must be a program (object) on each server to
communicate, it is not apparent why the claims do not cover known server-
to-server communications. If Appellants intend some special meaning for
the claim terms, it has not been set forth in the claims or expressly defined in
the Specification. Nevertheless, we have to address the rejection before us.
Since Schmidt discloses wrapper facades it discloses "objects." Since
Schmidt discloses communication over a network it necessarily teaches one
skilled in the art that there are "objects" at both ends of the communication.
Schmidt does not expressly teach "two objects in separate and distinct server
locations" because it shows an example of a plurality of "clients" in
communication with a "logging server" over a network. Nevertheless,
Schmidt is not limited to this illustrative example. We understand the
Examiner's rejection to be that the clients in Schmidt could be servers, or
that a server could be added, in view of Konrad. Since Konrad, Figure 2,
shows two hosts in communication, where the local host can be a local
multi-user system, i.e., a server, and the remote host is a server for several
local hosts, Konrad discloses server to server communication. Konrad's
definition of server is different than Appellants’ usage of the term. It may be
that Konrad alone could meet the terms of claim 1 since the programs on the
hosts can be considered objects. However, one skilled in the art would have
known to apply the teaching of server to server communication in Konrad to
Schmidt. The only difference is that the client in Schmidt serves a single
user, instead of as a server that is shared by several users. The motivation is
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013