Appeal 2007-0901
Application 10/063,402
Batten-Carew 5,968,177 Oct 19, 1999
Davis 6,181,803 B1 Jan. 30, 2001
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 5-7, 9-13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Batten-Carew.
2. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Batten-Carew.
3. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Batten-Carew and Davis.
OPINION
The Examiner finds instant claim 5 to be anticipated by Batten-Carew.
Appellants submit that the reference fails to disclose isolating administrative
access to a plurality of client systems in a computer network via a data
center.
Appellants acknowledge (Appeal Br. 4-5) that Batten-Carew discloses
at column 7, lines 8 through 15 that the serving entity 12 (Fig. 1) processes
administrative requests from administrative entities 16, 18. At step 108 (Fig.
3), the processed request is then provided either to the administrative entity
that initiated the request or directly to the end-user. Batten-Carew teaches
that typically the processed request will be provided to the administrative
entity, which will subsequently provide the information to the end-user.
Appellants conclude from this description that the reference fails to meet the
terms of the claim because Batten-Carew “in the same embodiment” teaches
that the administrative request “can also be” provided back to the
administrative entity.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013