Appeal No. 2002-0633
Application No. 08/978,012
We are not persuaded by the examiner’s basic view that the
client computer/user is or corresponds to the owner of the
claimed desired files. Notwithstanding the fact that appellants
do not provide support in the specification or drawings to
otherwise define an owner as a unique entity, we do not go so far
as to agree with the examiner’s view that a user with privileges
to make modifications or changes to an Internet address amounts
to an owner as expressed at the bottom of page 10 of the answer.
While this may be true in some instances in the art as a whole,
neither Noble nor Inakoshi teaches or suggests that any
user/client computer is an owner of accessible files. Likewise,
the mere fact that Noble’s teaching does not exclude an owner as
a user or a user as an owner, does not amount to a teaching or
suggestion within 35 U.S.C. § 103 to lead us to agree with the
examiner’s view that therefore, ipso facto, a user is an owner
for purposes of claim interpretation. Appellants’ reliance at
pages 2 and 3 of the reply brief on Black’s Law Dictionary is not
well taken since a definition from a technical dictionary of
common Internet usages would have been more persuasive.
All of these remarks constitute substantive reasons based
upon the teachings and suggestions of both references to reverse
the rejection of the claims on appeal. The examiner’s
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007