Appeal 2007-0901
Application 10/063,402
removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Our
reviewing court has repeatedly warned against confining the claims to
specific embodiments described in the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Appellants also argue that Batten-Carew fails to disclose issuing a
trusted message from the data center to at least one managed client system
when the authenticated administrator system does have authorization to
perform the service command (i.e., step (b4) of instant claim 5). Appellants
again address column 7, lines 9 through 15 of the reference, but we note that
Batten-Carew does not teach that the “administrative request” may be
provided directly to the end user, but that the processed request may be
provided directly to the end user. (Cf. Appeal Br. 6; Batten-Carew col. 7, ll.
8-15).
In any event, Appellants contend there is no mention in the reference
of the serving entity (“data center”) issuing a trusted message directly to an
end-user (“managed client system”). (Appeal Br. 6.) According to
Appellants, paragraph 11 of the Specification discloses that a trusted
message is a message that is encrypted and has an associated signature. (Id.
6-7.)
Actually, the Specification at paragraph 11 says that data center 18
issues an “appropriately signed, trusted message” to the intended client 16.
The plain language of the Specification describes the “message” as being
both “appropriately signed” and “trusted.” Under the precepts of English
grammar, the comma in “The Long, Hot Summer” means that the summer is
both long and hot. A comma is inserted between coordinating, but not
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013