Appeal 2007-0437
Application 09/982,224
device is stated to perform the function. The server is merely stated to
positively receive such a passively generated command.
Within the scope of the claimed feature argued before us and the
ability of the user to use the system of Brown in any manner, a regularly set
time of every weekday of performing a saving or updating function clearly
meets the limitation as well. Furthermore, since the assignee of the Brown
patent is Microsoft Corporation, the reference to the software application
WORD 97 at the middle of column 5 and other application programs at the
middle of column 10 buttress the regular updating capabilities generally
indicated in the latter sub-figures of figure 2 in Brown.
Our initial discussion of Brown in the paragraph bridging pages 3 and
4 of our prior decision sets up an initial analysis of our views of that
reference by recognizing that the Examiner was correct in stating that there
was no per se recited “heartbeat commands” within Brown alone. Such
commands in other words were generally taught to be transmitted at regular
or defined intervals to the extent claimed. In our discussion of Caronni at
pages 4 and 5, we merely expanded upon the Examiner’s views effectively
that Caronni merely confirms the need for synchronization in a collaboration
environment. We are, therefore, not persuaded by Appellants’
corresponding remarks at pages 2 and 3 of the Request regarding Caronni.
Likewise, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ further remarks
regarding Brown (page 3 of the Request) urging that this reference
effectively teaches away based upon our discussion at the middle paragraph
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013