Appeal No. 2002-2013
Application 09/036,699
instructions are executed, especially when the examiner also states that the instructions are
inherently included in node 16. Assuming that the instructions are located in node 16, which is a
local node with respect to the user (column 6, lines 50-65), then in the context of claim 24, a
remote platform is remote from the user. The examiner has pointed to no disclosure in Barrett
about downloading or pre-fetching to a remote platform relative to the user’s own platform.
Even if the platform on which the stored instructions are executed is not that of the user, the
examiner has not shown that the platform to which the URLs are downloaded is remote from the
platform on which the instructions are executed.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 24 and 26 cannot be sustained.
B. The Obviousness Rejection Over Barrett
The examiner has rejected claims 9 and 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over Barrett. Claims 16 and 17 each depends from claim 9 and thus includes all the limitations
of claim 9. Under Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966),
one of the underlying facts the examiner must determine is the differences between the claimed
invention and the prior art. In that regard, the examiner found (Answer at 4):
Barrett does not explicitly show that the URLs are prefetched to a remote proxy
server because URLs are prefetched to a remote client . . . .
To account for that difference, the examiner states (Answer at 4):
[H]owever, Barrett teaches the use of internet and suggests that the internet 12
includes numerous servers, storage, repositories, communication links, etc.
Barrett further teaches that general architecture of the internet is well known in
the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to modify Barrett by sending URLs to a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007