Appeal 2007-1403
Application 10/226,966
centralized depiction of a process definition already selected by a user as an
example in that reference to operate in a certain sequence.
Implicitly the depiction shown there does illustrate the graphical
depiction of all of those services that are available within the reference in
one location. The main panel depiction in Figure 5 of this reference and its
various later depictions, such as Figures 11 and 14, show in the form of a list
a plurality of services available which may be selectively combined to
generate a process definition of the type claimed. Some of the later figures
show the “registration” capability, a feature also known in the prior art and
noted at Specification page 2.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner’s views that the claimed “a
service bureau” may also be determined to exist in Fiszman according to the
generic process automation “system” characterized as Generic Process
Automation Engine (GPAE) in Figures 1 and 3, which system is disclosed to
comprise the engine 10 and the Common Object Request Broker
Architecture (CORBA) bus 16. Additional enhancing features are shown in
Figures 3, 4, and 17. None of the other features of representative
independent claim 1 are argued before us in the principal Brief. It is noted
that the Examiner does not utilize Bahar to make up for the alleged
deficiencies of the primary reference with respect to the service bureau and
the generating process definition of claim 1, but merely the ability to
enhance other but non-argued features before us. Still, even though the
focus of Bahar is to avoid software piracy, there is a remote service system 9
in Figure 1 which may be considered by the artisan to be analogous to the
claimed service bureau, which system services various users,
notwithstanding the contrary urging at page 9 of the Reply Brief. Appellants
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013