Appeal 2007-0937
Application 10/666,869
over Fletcher II. Accordingly, for each rejection we will treat all of the
claims as a single group with claim 1 as representative.
The Examiner (Answer 4) first rejects claim 5 as indefinite, asserting
that "The provisioning system" lacks antecedent basis. However, claim 5
clearly refers to the web service provisioning system of claim 1. Thus,
although claim 5 could more precisely refer to "The web service
provisioning system," the claim defines the patentable subject matter with a
reasonable degree of particularity and distinctness. Accordingly, we cannot
sustain the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The Examiner (Answer 4) next rejects claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, and 11
through 13 as being anticipated by Fletcher I. The Examiner asserts
(Answer 5) that the claim 1 and claim 8 limitations of storing provisioning
processes data for each web service that correlates to respective
administrative systems supporting the web services and invoking the
provisioning processes data for each of the web services that correlates to
administrative systems supporting the web services are described in
paragraphs [0024], [0050], [0063], [0064], and [0075] of Fletcher I.
Appellants contend (Br. 8-10) that Fletcher I fails to disclose the
above-noted limitations. Specifically, Appellants contend (Br. 9) that
although a system like that of Fletcher I must include administrative
services, Fletcher I makes no mention in the portions relied upon by the
Examiner nor anywhere else about provisioning the administrative systems
by web services. Therefore, Appellants contend (Br. 10) that Fletcher I fails
to anticipate the claims. Accordingly, the issue is whether Fletcher I
discloses the limitations of storing provisioning processes data for each web
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013