Appeal No. 2002-1922
Application No. 09/163,724
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and
we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 8,
10, 11 and 14 through 24.
Appellants argue (supplemental brief, pages 5 and 6) that:
Tso et al. does not teach selectively causing processing
to be undertaken at a client or a web server depending on
the client’s capability, much less does Tso et al. teach
causing the server data to be processed at the web site
when a data request from the client computer indicates
that the web server is to process server data to render a
formatted data structure, regardless of the processing
capability of the client computer. Rather, Tso et al.
teaches scaling, at an intermediate scaling server, the
compression of data from a web server to match the
capability of a client. The compression in Tso et al.
(the only thing that evidently depends on the client’s
capabilities) is always done at the intermediate scaling
server, and the compressed data, having been scaled
appropriately, is then always sent to the client. That
is, instead of being directed to . . . determining
whether a client or a web server will process web data
and also allowing the client to demand that the web
server do the processing, Tso et al. is directed to
something completely different, namely, determining how
much to compress data, which is always undertaken at the
scaling server of Tso et al. and then always sent to the
client. Determining who does the processing is clearly a
much different thing than determining how much to
compress data.
We agree with appellants’ arguments. Even if we assume for
the sake of argument that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to provide Tso with the JDBC server and
port teachings of Purcell, the modified teachings of Tso would
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007