Ex Parte TSO - Page 6




                Appeal No. 2002-2013                                                                                                         
                Application 09/036,699                                                                                                       

                        proxy server or any one of servers, storage, repositories, communication links in                                    
                        the internet environment because the use of proxy servers are old and well known                                     
                        in the art.  In addition, sending URLs to a different destination is not a patentable                                
                        distinction, and it is only a design choice.                                                                         
                        The above-quoted rationale is unpersuasive.  Most of the examiner’s assertions are                                   
                merely conclusory and without supporting evidence, e.g., the statement that sending URLs to a                                
                different (meaning remote in this context) destination is not a patentable distinction and is only a                         
                design choice.  The examiner has not cited to any prior art which makes use of a remote server or                            
                remote platform as the destination for a pre-fetch operation for URLs.  Even assuming that                                   
                remote servers or remote platforms exist on the internet, that alone does not mean all uses or                               
                applications involving remote servers and platforms are without patentable distinction.  It is                               
                incumbent upon the examiner to produce evidence to support an obviousness conclusion and not                                 
                simply declare the claimed invention obvious.                                                                                
                        The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the examiner                             
                does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the                                
                modification.  In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992).  It                              
                is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or "template" to piece                                
                together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious.  Id.                              
                We also do not find that the examiner either has taken official notice or can take such                                      
                official notice that it is common knowledge to pre-fetch URLs to a remote platform or a remote                               
                server.  The matter is clearly in dispute.  Ultimately, and in any event, it is still up to the                              
                examiner to produce evidence sufficient to make out a prima facie case of obviousness.  The                                  

                                                                     6                                                                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007