Appeal No. 2002-0614
Application No. 08/976,888
Claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-24 and 26-28 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Walls.
Claims 6,16 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Walls in view of Freund.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 23, mailed August
27, 2001)2 for the Examiner’s reasoning, and to the brief (Paper
No. 22, filed July 18, 2001) for Appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In rejecting claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-24 and 26-28 under 35
U.S.C. § 102, the Examiner refers to table 1 of Walls and equates
file-system definer 222 (col. 11, line 62 through col. 12, line
5) to the claimed means for evaluating the command to determine a
first type of the first file (non-final Office action, page 3).
The Examiner further characterizes the field name “Remote
Location” listed in Table 1 of Walls (col. 17, lines 40-49) as
the claimed means for retrieving the first file from a remote
data processing system when the first file type indicates its
storage outside the local data processing system (id.).
2 Although the Examiner does not refer to any particular one of the
previous Office actions for the complete text of the claim rejections, we find
that a non-final Office action (Paper No. 13, mailed September 9, 2000)
contains the complete statement of the rejection, to which we refer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007