Appeal 2007-0928
Application 09/943,964
manner. As pointed out by Appellants (Reply Br. 3), the recitation of the
outputted status code from the remote software module includes the word
“the” indicating that it refers back to the earlier recitation of “status code”
which is input to the remote software module.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claim limitations are
not present in the disclosure of Ahmed, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of independent claim 22.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTIONS
We initially consider the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
23, which is dependent upon claim 22, based on the combination of Ahmed
and Niemat. The Niemat reference has been applied by the Examiner to
address the dummy transaction status code feature set forth in claim 22.
Since we find nothing, however, in the disclosure of Niemat which
overcomes the innate deficiencies of Ahmed discussed supra, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 23.
We next consider the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 1-12 based on the combination of Ahmed and Sato. In attacking the
Examiner’s reliance on Ahmed with respect to independent claim 1,
Appellants contend (Br. 22-24) that, in contrast to the claimed invention,
there is no disclosure in the ping-reply system of Ahmed that the ping
message flows “entirely” through at least a first stage software component.
According to Appellants (Reply Br. 5-6), there is no disclosure that Ahmed
outputs the same ping message from a software component, such as a
networked PC, that was originally sent but, rather, Ahmed outputs a reply
message to the originally sent ping message.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013