Appeal 2007-2116
Application 10/318,000
subsystem 300 as within the meaning of a program that can download files
or run applications from a file server, and thus a “client device.”
We have considered all of Appellants arguments in response to the
rejection of claim 1, but are not persuaded that the finding of anticipation is
in error. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Freeman. Claims 2, 4, 8-10, 12, 15-17, 19, and 21 thus
fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants argue, in defense of claim 3, that neither “object classes”
nor “parent classes” are discussed in Freeman. However, as we have
indicated, the law of anticipation does not require that the reference contain
the literal language of the claim. We also note that, in view of the
alternative language of claim 3, a “parent of an object class” from the first
client listing need not be present in a reference that anticipates the claim.
The Examiner, in fact, makes clear there is no allegation that Freeman
describes the parent of an object class as recited in claim 3. (Answer 15.)
Appellants respond, in turn, by relying on the limitations of claim 1. (Reply
Br. 5.)
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of error in the rejection of
claim 3. We sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Freeman. Claims 11 and 18, not separately argued, fall
with claim 3.
Instant claim 5 recites that the directory server of claim 1 is a
lightweight directory access protocol (LDAP) directory server. The
Examiner finds that Freeman describes the persistent store as being
maintained in an LDAP embodiment (e.g., col. 6, ll. 44-46), but is silent
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013