Appeal 2007-0435
Application 10/082,794
The Examiner in response points out, inter alia, that claim 4 of the
′807 application expressly claims “a stateful conversation between the client
and the web service . . . .” (Answer 6-7.) Appellants in the Reply Brief (at
1) “continue to maintain that the rejection is improper” but offer to provide a
terminal disclaimer “if the appeal process terminates with a holding that
Appellants’ claims are allowable in their current form.” Appellants do not,
however, offer any reasons in support of the belief that the rejection for
double patenting is improper.
Because Appellants have not shown that the rejection is improper, we
sustain the provisional rejection of the instant claims over the claims of
copending Application No. 10/082,807.
In the obviousness type double patenting rejection over Application
No. 10/784,492, the Examiner compares instant claim 1 with claims 1 and 3
of the ′492 application. Appellants’ remarks in the Reply Brief seem to
acknowledge that the Brief’s remarks about “domination” do not
demonstrate error in the rejection for double patenting. Being not persuaded
of error, we sustain the provisional rejection of the instant claims over the
claims of copending Application No. 10/784,492.
In response to the rejections over the prior art, Appellants argue that
instant claim 1 is not anticipated by BEA.
The minimum requirements of claim 1 are providing a source code
representation, identifying a method, and specifying a declarative
annotation. The claim is drawn to producing source code (i.e., producing a
computer program listing) as depicted in instant Figure 2.
Appellants’ arguments regarding the informational content of the
source code are not persuasive. The product of the method is what has come
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013