Appeal 2007-0226
Application 09/823,866
client and a server is simply not the same as providing objects
residing on servers.
As discussed, we interpret the rejection to be that it would have been
obvious to add a server in Schmidt. Example 1 of Schmidt is simply an
illustrative embodiment of where facade wrappers would be used in a
networking environment. One of ordinary skill in the computer
communications art would have been taught by Konrad, if not from her own
basic knowledge in the field, that servers communicate among each other.
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the references establish
a prima facie case of obviousness which has not been rebutted. The
rejection of claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16-19, 21, and 22 is affirmed.
Claims 5, 10, 15, and 20
The Examiner admits that Schmidt does not disclose translation from
one view to another view. The Examiner referred to the rejection of claim 4
for "address classes," where it is stated that Schmidt teaches using objects to
represent functions such as threading, sockets, and mutex and concluded that
"it would have been obvious to also represent address related functions by
corresponding objects/classes" (Final Rejection 4). The Examiner found that
"Foody teaches object communication across heterogeneous systems
(fig. 11), including translating from one view to another view (convert types)
during communication (call)" (id.) and concluded that it would have been
obvious to include such translation from one view to another view in
Schmidt to provide bi-directional interoperability (id.).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013