Appeal No. 2000-2091
Application 08/441,024
We also note that Agrawal pertains to sharing of computer
resources wherein clients solicit availability status
information from servers (col. 2, lines 22-26). The client in
Agrawal does not store and transfer data and merely transmits
a solicit message to the server, as the storage and
transferring functions are performed by the server. Baker, on
the other hand, uses the file system state replicated on the
client workstation and allows the client to continue
processing (page 2). In case of the server’s reboot, the
client transfers to the server the pertinent file system state
not the data that was downloaded, processed and transmitted.
Based on our analysis above, we find no teaching or suggestion
in Agrawal and Baker that would overcome the deficiencies of
Kobayashi related to the claimed data downloading, processing,
storing and transferring at the client side. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 11 and 13
through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kobayashi in view of
Agrawal and Baker.
We next consider the rejection of claim 3, which depends
from claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kobayashi, Agrawal
and Baker in combination with Genosa. The rejection is based
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007