Appeal 2007-0663
Application 09/825,661
server version and client. A version of object oid1 have already
been updated to the same, the server will not send a version and
other data to client A. This is a waste in terms of the usage of
communication line.
(Id. ll. 32-40.)
III. ISSUE
The "Appellant makes many redundant arguments," American Lava
Corp. v. Multronics, Inc., 461 F.2d 836, 842, 174 USPQ 107, 111 (CCPA
1972), in his three briefs, which collectively constitute fifty pages.2 Rather
than reiterate the arguments of the Appellant and Examiner in toto, we focus
on the issue therebetween. Finding that the "third paragraph of Section 2.4
of DRP discusses using content identifiers to avoid downloading file for a
second time if the file is already in the cache," (Answer 14), the Examiner
alleges, "DRP would inherently have to cancel the request in order to avoid
the redundant download. If the request were not cancelled, then the
download would proceed and the invention would not function as
disclosed." (Id.) The Appellant argues, "DRP avoids a redundant download
by a client not issuing a GET request to a server for a file that the client
already possesses in its cache. Thus, a request need not be canceled, but
instead the request to the server is simply not issued in the first place if the
2 Because DRP and He collectively comprise only thirty-five pages,
the fifty pages of briefs is particularly notable. The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit has advised, "A patentee is not required to fight tooth
and nail every possibly adverse thought an examiner commits to paper, nor
to advance redundant arguments for patentability." TorPharm, Inc. v.
Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 336 F.3d 1322, 1330, 67 USPQ2d 1511,
1517 (Fed.Cir. 2003).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013