Appeal 2007-0760
Application 09/974,373
a server application running on said server computer,
wherein said client application subscribes to said server application
and periodically sends a status signal to said server application in said
disconnected environment so long as said client application continues to use
resources of said server computer, and
wherein continued receipt of said status signal by said server
computer informs said server application that said client computer is
maintaining a connection with said server computer and wherein said status
signal comprises data identifying resources currently being used by said
client computer, and
wherein said server application maintains statistics on client computer
connections based on said status signals received from said client application
such that said signals allow said server application to transparently track
activity of said client computer in said disconnected environment.
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Barker US 6,363,421 B2 Mar. 26, 2002
Foley US 6,487,590 B1 Nov. 26, 2002
The Examiner rejected the claims on appeal as follows:
Claims 1 through 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Barker and Foley.
First, Appellant contends1 that the combination of Barker and Foley
does not render claims 1 through 32 unpatentable. Particularly, Appellant
1 This decision considers only those arguments that Appellant submitted in
the Appeal and Reply Briefs. Arguments that Appellant could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to have been waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004). See also In re Watts,
354 F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013