Appeal 2007-0663
Application 09/825,661
agree with the Appellant that "if the client determines that it already
possesses [a] desired file," (First Reply Br. 9), it does not issue a request for
that file. Because we also agree with the Appellant that "DRP avoids a
redundant download by a client not issuing a GET request to a server for a
file that the client already possesses," (First Reply Br. 9), we disagree with
the Examiner that "DRP would inherently have to cancel the request in order
to avoid the redundant download." (Answer 14.)
Turning to He, we disagree with the Examiner that "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." (Answer 15.) Because "the server will not send a
version and other data to client A," (FF 15), in response to an abort request,
the server has no response to stop sending. In other words, the client uses
the abort request to cancel its request for a version and other data before any
part of a response thereto can be sent.
VI. CONCLUSION
Because DRP avoids a redundant download by not issuing a request
for a file that the client already possesses, and He uses an abort request to
cancel its request for a version and other data before any part of a response
thereto can been sent, we are unpersuaded that teachings from DRP or He
would have suggested stopping the sending of the remaining part of a
response to a request for data.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013