Appeal 2007-0663
Application 09/825,661
client determines that it already possesses the desired file in its cache."
(First Reply Br. 9.)
Citing col. 3, lines 32-40 of He, (Answer 4), the Examiner also makes
the following assertion.
As disclosed by He, the abort request is sent to the server for
the express purpose of stopping the transmission (i.e. stopping
sending the remaining portion of the response) and thus
preventing the redundant download. The "transaction"
referenced by He is the updating of a file in the cache. The
server foregoes sending the file as a direct result of the received
abort request. Thus, He reads directly on this limitation of the
claims.
(Id. 15.) The Appellant argues, "this refers to the server foregoing the
sending of data to the client, rather than the client informing the server to
stop sending a 'remaining portion' of a response." (First Reply Br. 10.)
Therefore, the issue is whether the Examiner has shown that teachings from
DRP or He would have suggested stopping the sending of the remaining part
of a response to a request for data.
"In addressing the issue, the Board conducts a two-step analysis. First,
we construe the independent claims at issue to determine their scope.
Second, we determine whether the construed claims would have been
obvious." Ex Parte Filatov, No. 2006-1160, 2007 WL 1317144, at *2
(B.P.A.I. 2007).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013