Appeal 2007-0244
Application 09/777,500
Examiner’s position that Chen does not teach identifying the media
server(s). Appellants argue that Appellants cannot find the teachings upon
which the Examiner relies upon in the rejection with respect to Jones (Reply
Br. 5).
With this posture of the case, rather than remand the case, we opt to
disagree with the Examiner’s position that Chen does not identify the media
server(s), and we make the finding that Chen teaches and fairly suggests that
the meta data server identifies the media server(s) and transmits this to the
client at least in Figure 9. Additionally, we find it difficult to imagine the
use of the Internet and ISP’s in Jones and not have at least some
identification of each of the locations of the client servers and the web
servers in Figure 6 of Jones. Therefore, we find some implicit transmission
in Jones of “meta data to the client for use by the client to locate the media
data server to retrieve the media data” since the client computer systems
may provide media files to other client computer systems or to and from the
web server. (Jones, col. 14.) Therefore, we do not agree with Appellants’
argument of a lack of teaching, and we find that all of the elements of the
claimed invention are in the combination of Chen and Jones.
Appellants additionally challenge the Examiner’s combination of the
two teachings at pages 5-7 of the Reply Brief. We do not find that
Appellants reiteration of the Examiner’s statements and a laundry listing of
case citations and quotations to rise to the level of a specific argument for
patentability. We do not find that Appellants have identified why it would
not have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to
have combined the teachings of Chen and Jones. Therefore, Appellants'
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013