Appeal 2007-0901
Application 10/063,402
(sufficient for anticipation) in which all processed requests are sent directly
to the client system, because the claim does not distinguish over the
embodiment acknowledged by Appellants where only some messages are
sent directly from the data center to the client system.
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments in the briefs but are
not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding of anticipation. We sustain
the rejection of claim 5, and of claims 6, 7, 9-13, 19, and 20, not separately
argued. We also sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 8 and 14, because
Appellants rely on the supposed error in the rejection applied against
representative claim 5. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 5-14, 19, and 20 is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013