Appeal No. 2007-0695 Page 3
Application No. 09/837,041
(c) a flow manager configured to utilize the metadata to map the
request in the original format to the request in the transformed format and to
call the at least one application.
The Examiner provided an element-by-element analysis of the claims
showing where in Meltzer each claim limitation is described. (Answer2 3-4).
Appellants argued that Meltzer fails to describe element (b) of claim 1.
(Appeal Br.3 11-15). Element (b) reads:
(b) at least one specification document configured to produce metadata
defining a relationship between data of the request in the original format and
data of the request in the transformed format, wherein the metadata
comprises a plurality of metadata instances each configured to support a
different request protocol.
Regarding element (b), the Examiner found that Meltzer showed this element,
explaining it this way:
(b) at least one specification document configured to produce metadata
defining a relationship between data of the request in the original format and
data of the request in the transformed format ([Meltzer,] Fig 9), wherein the
metadata comprises a plurality of metadata instances each configured to
support a different request protocol ([Meltzer,] col. 32, lines 12-55);
Answer 3.
We reproduce Fig. 9 of Meltzer below.
2 Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Jul. 11, 2006).
3 Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Apr. 6, 2006).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013