Appeal No. 2002-0288
Application No. 08/883,241
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of
the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1040, 228 USPQ
685, 687 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 146-147 (CCPA 1976). Only those
arguments actually made by appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellant could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived [see 37 CFR 1.192 (a)].
With regard to independent claim 1, the examiner takes the
position that Sanderman discloses downloading into memory of a
local computer system by teaching the allocation of memory from a
node memory area into the computer memory, citing column 8, lines
10-35. The examiner urges that Sanderman’s teaching of a
hierarchical data structure including three different types of
nodes --folder nodes, leaf nodes, and junction point nodes– is a
teaching of the claimed hierarchical tree structure. The
examiner cites Figures 1 and 2 and column 7, lines 23-65, of
Sanderman as a teaching of a variety of levels within a
hierarchical tree structure and nodes that contain a deepest
level which link a service namespace with another service
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007