Appeal 2007-0475
Application 10/047,312
OPINION
Section 102 rejection over Agnihotri
We will consider representative claims to the extent that claims are
separately argued. We remind Appellants that mere repetition of claim
language does not constitute an argument for separate patentability of the
claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Moreover, reproduction of claim
language coupled with an allegation of patentability does not demonstrate
error in a rejection.
Agnihotri describes an In-Context Launch Wrapper (ICLW) module
that provides a generic interface for automating integration of device
management applications (applets) into existing Enterprise management
consoles at a host system of a network. (Abstract.) Agnihotri Figure 2
depicts specific management consoles 300 through 330 and device
management applets 100 through 130, each of which may be written for a
specific console. ICLW module 210 obviates writing code that would
otherwise be required for integrating a particular applet into a particular
management console. Agnihotri col. 3, l. 21- col. 4, l. 31.
The Examiner reads instant claim 1 on the disclosure of Agnihotri
(Answer 3-4). Appellants “fundamentally disagree” with the Examiner’s
equating the applet components with the claimed plug-in code files, but
neglect to offer any basis for the belief. (Appeal Br. 9.) We find no error in
the Examiner’s reading, in view of the Specification and the disclosure of
Agnihotri.
Appellants also submit that Aghihotri fails to disclose that the plug-in
code files and display panel files are “derived from management data.”
(Appeal Br. 9-10.) The Examiner finds that any application written to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013