Appeal 2007-0264
Application 09/986,248
automatically unpacking the plurality of objects contained in the
response message.
First, Appellants contend that Halpern does not anticipate claims 1
through 3, 13 through 15, 25 and 26. Particularly, Appellants contend that
Halpern does not fairly teach or suggest automatically unpacking a plurality
of objects in a response message. (Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 5). Second,
Appellants contend that claims 4 through 10, 16 through 23, 27 through 29,
31 and 32 would not have been obvious over Halpern alone or in
combination with Feinman.1 Particularly, Appellants contend that Halpern
does not teach a packet request. (Br. 16). Further, Appellants contend that
the combination of Halpern and Feinman does not teach outputting or
presenting unpacked objects in the order indicated in the response message.
Therefore, Halpern alone or in combination with Feinman would not have
rendered claims 4 through 10, 16 through 23, 27 through 29, 31 and 32
unpatentable. (Br. 19-20).
The Examiner contends that Halpern’s batch processing of a self-
extracting executable file received at the client computer corresponds to
1 This decision considers only those arguments that Appellants
submitted in the Appeal and Reply Briefs. Arguments that Appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to have been
waived. See 37 CFR 41.37(c)(1) (vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004). See also In re
Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013