Appeal 2007-1117 Application 09/825,495 said at least two application service provider servers providing said application services. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Duursma US 6,643,690 B2 Nov. 4, 2003 (filed Feb. 18, 1999) The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based upon the teachings of Duursma. Appellant contends that Duursma does not describe “the feature of a service routing server utilizing a predetermined application criteria to intelligently select one of the at least two application service provider servers based on the application request received from the computing device, and intelligently routing the computing device application service request over the network to the selected application service provider server to perform the requested application service” (Br. 12). Appellant also contends that Duursma does not teach “developing a register for said application service provider, said register qualifying said application servers based on the parameters of the services provided by the application service providers” (Br. 16). We hereby sustain the rejection of record. ISSUES Does Duursma describe the feature of intelligently selecting an application service provider server based on a user’s service request, and intelligently routing the service request to the selected application service provider server to perform the request? 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013