Appeal No. 2002-0288
Application No. 08/883,241
becomes the “designated” deepest node level.
With regard to downloading documents in the nodes on levels
that are in and between the root node and the node at the deepest
node level, appellants do not argue that Hughes may not be
combined with Sanderman. Rather, they merely argue that neither
Sanderman nor Hughes discloses “downloading, into the memory of
the local computer system, documents in the nodes on levels that
are in and between the root node and the node at the deepest node
level.” But then, appellants argue that the combination of
references would result in all of the network information being
downloaded to the local computer because Hughes does not
designate a deepest node level of the tree structure and so
cannot download documents in nodes on levels that are in and
between the root node and the node of the deepest level
designated on the tree structure.
The point is, as broadly claimed, a result of all the
network information being downloaded to the local computer (which
appellants admit would result in the combination of Hughes with
Sanderman) would meet the instant claim language wherein the
designation of the deepest node level is, in fact, the
designation of all the information.
-9–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007