Appeal 2007-0663
Application 09/825,661
IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
"Our analysis begins with construing the claim limitations at issue."
Filatov, at *2. Here, independent claim 7 recites in pertinent part the
following limitations: "upon receiving a second request to stop sending said
response, stopping the sending of said response." Independent claims 1, 6,
10, 15, and 16 include similar limitations. Considering the limitations, all
the independent claims require stopping the sending of the remaining part of
a response to a request for data.
V. OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS
"Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next
inquiry is whether the subject matter would have been obvious." Ex Parte
Massingill, No. 2003-0506, 2004 WL 1646421, at *3 (B.P.A.I 2004).
"In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert,
9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
"'A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from
the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter
to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26
USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, a client employs the DRP protocol to determine exactly which
files have changed. (FF 6-7.) Based on that determination, the client then
requests downloading of only those files that have changed. Conversely, we
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013