Appeal No. 1998-0527
Application No. 08/344,325
arguments actually made by appellants have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but
chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
In the rejection of independent claims 10 and 11, the
examiner essentially found that Hoover taught all the features
of these claims except for the remote terminals each having a
cache memory. The examiner cited Nelson for its disclosure of
a cache memory. The examiner concluded that it would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use
Nelson’s cache memories in Hoover’s remote terminals [answer,
pages 3-5].
Although there are similar recitations in claims 10
and 11, representative claim 10 makes no mention of cache
memories or cache contents. Therefore, the cache memory
teachings of Nelson are not relevant to the invention as
recited in claim 10. For all practical purposes, the
examiner’s rejection of claim 10 is based on the examiner’s
position that every step of claim 10 is disclosed, taught or
suggested by the system of Hoover. Our determination in this
case is dictated simply by a consideration
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007