Appeal 2007-1403
Application 10/226,966
admit that Bahar teaches “registering the software application online with a
remote service system.”
With respect to the arguments at page 4 of the Reply Brief, even if we
agree with Appellants’ interpretation that the language of claim 1 describing
the graphical depiction of all of the services available at the service bureau,
the already identified teachings and showings in Fiszman illustrate this
capability as well as the ability to add on new services, such as by the use of
the plug-in tools in the lower right portion in Figure 3 and the plug-in
processes at the bottom right portion of Figure 17. It appears to us that the
artisan would well appreciate that the showings in Figures 3 and 17, for
example, represent that all services available from various nodes or tools
may be readily available for the user to create a respective process definition
as represented by Figure 9 from all the available services also shown there.
Lastly, we turn to representative claim 31. The arguments presented
at pages 20-21 of the principal Brief are misplaced. Appellants merely argue
without explanation that “Fiszman and Bahar cannot teach or suggest ‘that
services are added to said service bureau without affecting a prior
registration with any of said plurality of processing nodes.’” The noted
portion of Bahar at the top of page 21 of this Brief clearly indicates
otherwise. There the Examiner makes reference to the compelling teachings
at column 6, lines 55-61 of Bahar. The same lack of interference is believed
present in Fiszman regarding the newly added services we noted earlier.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013