Appeal 2007-0264
Application 09/986,248
Appellants’ automatic unpacking of objects in a response message, as
claimed. (Answer 4). The Examiner also contends that Halpern’s
packetization transport protocol allows the packing of objects from the
server to the client and vice-versa. (Answer 6). Further, the Examiner
contends that Feinman’s sequential file teaches presenting packed objects in
an indicated order. (Answer ). The Examiner therefore concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to yield the
claimed invention based on Halpern alone, or in combination with Feinman.
We affirm.
ISSUES
The pivotal issues on appeal before us are as follows:
(1) Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), does Halpern’s disclosure anticipate the
claimed invention when Halpern teaches that the client processes in batch
mode a self-extracting executable file received from the server in response to
a client request?
(2) Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), would one of ordinary skill in the art, at the
time of the present invention, have found Halpern alone or in combination
with Feinman renders the claimed invention unpatentable when Halpern
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013