Appeal No. 2002-0633
Application No. 08/978,012
assume that the sender may send out address change information of
the noted home page, there is no teaching or suggestion in this
reference that any address changes that may be effected by the
sender at a network server are caused by that server to be
transferred to the database of the accessing client computer as
claimed. Inakoshi does not teach or suggest the further
requirement of clause c) of representative claim 1 on appeal that
the network server database maintains a list of addresses of
accessing client computers that have accessed the desired files,
a feature not found in Noble either. Noble’s change detection
web server 30 controls monitoring for changes and is not the same
as the source document server 12. It is on the basis of the
network server storing this client address list in clause c) that
the updated address is actually transferred by the network server
to a listed client computer database in clause f) of
representative claim 1 on appeal. In Inakoshi it is the entire
network resource monitoring system of this reference that
monitors changes and causes this transfer to occur.
Thus, assuming for the sake of argument within 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 that the teachings and suggestions of both references are
properly combinable within 35 U.S.C. § 103, all of the features
of independent claims on appeal are not met.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007