Appeal No. 2002-1833
Application No. 09/246,490
anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 18 is reversed because
Frank does not disclose every limitation found in these claims.
Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565,
1567 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 3378 (1995).
Turning to claim 19, we find that none of appellant’s
arguments apply to this claim. Unlike claims 1 through 18, this
claim, like Frank, satisfies processor requests locally before
making a remote request. In summary, the anticipation rejection
of claims 19 and 20 is sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed as to claims 19 and 20, and
is reversed as to claims 1 through 18.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007