Appeal No. 2002-0614
Application No. 08/976,888
prima facie case of anticipation and the 35 U.S.C. § 102
rejection of claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-24 and 26-28 over Walls cannot
be sustained.
Turning now to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 6, 16
and 25, we note that the Examiner further relies on Freund for
teaching a socket for communicating between the local and the
remote data processing systems (non-final Office action, page 5).
Freund relates to a system and method for regulating access and
maintaining security of individual computer systems and local
area networks connected to larger open networks (col. 1, lines
25-30). However, since there is no disclosure in Freund that
relates to a “means for evaluating the command to determine a
first type file of the first file” after a command to access a
first file is received, the deficiencies of Walls as discussed
above with respect to claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-24 and 26-28 cannot be
overcome. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 6, 16 and 25 over Walls and Freund.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007