Appeal No. 2007-0340
Application 10/057,259
(Id. at 3, para. 47.) These timeouts are referred to hereinafter as “network-system
timeouts.”
We agree with the Examiner that the recited “scoreboard . . . adapted to store
transaction identifiers” reads on GUI 104 (Answer 4). In so holding, we assume
the Examiner is reading the storage aspect of this limitation on the storage
locations inherently required for storing the information displayed by the GUI.
The Examiner also correctly reads the recited “transactions,” each which is defined
by Claim 1 as “a first client sending a request to a second client,” on the queries
that Eden’s querying device 102 sends to the devices 106-116 (Answer 4;
Advisory Action Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief 23).
The Examiner reads the recited “transaction identifiers” on the “pictures of
the device[s]” (Answer 15, para C), which we understand to be the device icons.
This position is correct, because each icon represents a known device that either
has been or will be queried regarding its availability.4 Appellant’s argument that
the “device names” do not represent transactions (Reply Br. 2) is unresponsive to
the Examiner’s reliance on the device icons.
Turning now to the recited “first timer flag” and “second timer flag,” the
term “timer flag” is not defined in Appellant’s specification and therefore must be
given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellant’s disclosure.
In re Thrift, 298 F.3d 1357, 1364, 63 USPQ2d 2002, 2006 (Fed. Cir. 2002). As a
3 Filed January 16, 2006.
4 Claim 1 does not limit the recited “request” to a completed request.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013