Appeal 2007-0928
Application 09/943,964
We do not find Appellants’ argument to be persuasive since we do not
find such argument to be commensurate with the scope of independent claim
1. We find no requirement in claim 1 that the output of at least a first stage
software stage component be the same as the input. We would point out that
the language of the relevant portion of independent claim 1 is set forth in
alternative format, i.e., the claim recites the detection of whether the data
message or a derivative thereof flows entirely through at least a first
software stage component. In our view, the ordinarily skilled artisan would
recognize that the network PC outputted “OK” reply message (Ahmed,
Figure 2) would be reasonably considered to be a derivative of the inputted
status query ping message.
We also find to be unpersuasive Appellants’ argument (Br. 20-21;
Reply Br. 4-5) that Ahmed does not disclose the cascading of first and
second stage software components as required by appealed claim 1. We fail
to see why the router and networked PC elements illustrated in Ahmed’s
Figure 2 and described beginning at column 2, line 56 of Ahmed, which
receive the ping message from the “Network 6000” maintenance server,
would not be considered to be cascaded software stage component
components.
We also agree with the Examiner (Answer 7, 22) that, regardless of
the merits of the teachings of Ahmed related to cascaded software stage
components, the applied Sato reference also has a teaching of cascaded
software stage components in the form of operating systems 105 and 112
and communicating unit 110. Appellants’ arguments with respect to Sato
focus on the alleged deficiencies of Sato in disclosing the claimed fault
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013