Appeal 2007-2131
Application 10/401,331
When files to be compressed are picked up, they are subject to
data compression processing (Step 250). The file compression
method selection portion 104 here selects the method with
suitable compression ratio and compression/decompression
speed depending on the file access frequency and data attribute
[emphasis added].
(Ishii, col. 7, ll. 15-20).
The file search portion 102 is provided with an additional
function to search for files with high access frequency from the
files compressed already. According to this embodiment, when
the file status monitor portion 101 judges that the threshold
value is the initial value and that the available file capacity is
over the threshold, the file search portion 102 searches the
already compressed files for files with high access frequency so
that the file decompression portion 106 decompresses such files
[emphasis added].
(Ishii, col. 8, ll. 32-41).
Lastly, we note that in the description of the prior art, Appellants
expressly acknowledge that “[a]rchived files are normally compressed to
maximize storage media.” (Specification 2: 4-5). We note that the Supreme
Court has explicitly recognized that “[b]oth the novelty and the
nonobviousness requirements of federal patent law are grounded in the
notion that concepts within the public grasp, or those so obvious that they
readily could be, are the tools of creation available to all. They provide the
baseline of free competition upon which the patent system's incentive to
creative effort depends.” Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489
U.S. 141, 156, 9 USPQ2d 1847, 1854 (1989) [emphasis added]. We find
this reasoning applicable here, given that we find archiving as claimed by
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013