Appeal 2007-0760
Application 09/974,373
detailed in the findings of fact section above, we have found that Barker
teaches a client that periodically dispatches a heartbeat signal to a server to
indicate a continued connection with the server. (Finding of Fact 7.)
Similarly, we have found that Foley teaches that the client periodically
dispatches heartbeat data to the server indicating that the client has
maintained its connection with the server and further indicating that the
client is still using the resources identified by the session manager. (Findings
of Fact 10 and 11.) However, it is our view that the combined teachings of
Barker and Foley do not demonstrate the client status message identifying
the server resources currently being used by the client, as required by
representative claims 1 and 8. One of ordinary skill in the art would have
readily recognized that the Barker-Foley combination, at best, teaches a
client periodically sending to the server a status message indicating that the
client is still connected to the server and that it is still using resources
previously identified by the session manager. However, the ordinary skilled
artisan would have recognized that the combination relied upon by the
Examiner does not particularly teach the dispatched message signal itself as
containing data that identifies the server resources being used by client. It
follows that the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claims 1 and 8 as
being unpatentable over Barker and Foley.
It follows for the aforementioned reasons that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 2 through 7 and 9 through 32 as being unpatentable over the
combination of Baker and Foley.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013