Appeal No. 2000-2091
Application 08/441,024
the server without receiving any processed data from the
client (brief, pages 9 and 10). Appellant further points out
that the claimed client sends edited data to the server
voluntarily, and not in response to a request for services
from a server (brief, page 11).
With respect to Agrawal, Appellant argues that the client
does not send processed data to the server to update tasks as,
similar to Kobayashi, Agrawal performs tasks at the server
side (brief, page 10). Regarding Baker, Appellant points out
that if a server crashes, clients do not write edited data to
their memory and instead, continue where they left off and
only provide their file system states to the server when
server reboot is detected (brief, page 11).
In response, the Examiner provides no arguments to
dispute Appellant’s assertion that all the functions claimed
to be performed by the client, are done in Kobayashi at the
server side. The Examiner merely indicates that the only
disputed issue is what constitutes a client or a server. The
Examiner argues that the claimed client acts as a server when
it becomes a “provider of services” by “providing fault
recovery monitoring and data restoration services” (answer,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007