Appeal No. 2002-0633
Application No. 08/978,012
OPINION
We reverse.
Clause d) of independent claim 1 on appeal recites
“receiving notification of new Internet addresses, at the network
server, from owners of said desired files.” Clause e) of this
claim recites a feature of updating in the network server
database at least one of the Internet addresses for the desired
files on the network and, finally, clause f) recites the feature
of transferring from the network server database to the database
of the client computers this new updated address. Corresponding
features are recited in each of the other independent claims
9, 16 and 20 on appeal.
The focus of the arguments between appellants and the
examiner revolves around these features.
Both Noble and Inakoshi teach sophisticated passive
monitoring only arrangements on the Internet by which
users/clients may otherwise seek and/or receive updated web page
information associated with corresponding servers.
As repeatedly argued by appellants in the brief and reply
brief, Noble does not teach or suggest that an Internet network
server receives new Internet addresses from the owners of the
files desired by the client computer as in representative
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007