Appeal 2007-0475
Application 10/047,312
With respect to the rejection of claim 5, Appellants argue that
Agnihotri, at column 7, lines 3 through 8, simply teaches use of a module
that translates console instructions from one console to another. (Appeal Br.
13-14.) We agree with the Examiner (Answer 4-5 and 15-16) that the COM
objects described by the reference represent executable files that are
“adapted to interface with the management console corresponding to the
console identifier” within the meaning of claim 5. Further, the Examiner
provides a reasonable explanation with respect to how the objects are
generated and compiled consistent with the requirements of the claim. We
are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 5. We sustain the
rejection. Claims 12 and 19 fall with claim 5.
We sustain the rejection of claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, and 21.
Appellants’ arguments in support of the claims are based on display panel
files that are separate and apart from plug-in code files. As we have
indicated in relation to the rejection of claim 4, Appellants have offered a
conclusory reading of Agnihotri that is contrary to the Examiner’s findings.
The reference, however, provides substantial support for the Examiner’s
position. Appellants’ arguments have not demonstrated that the Examiner’s
alternative reading of the reference lacks adequate foundation. Absent
evidence or convincing argument to the contrary, we conclude that the
artisan would have understood that the “image file for graphical
representation” of an applet to be installed (Agnihotri col. 5, ll. 1-18) falls
within the meaning of a display panel file as claimed. The reference seems
to be clear in describing a file for graphical representation of the particular
applet on a selected console, such that a user can select the applet after
installation to the particular console. See, e.g., Agnihotri col. 16, ll. 1-7
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013