Appeal No. 2003-0428
Application 09/116,564
claim 1 and similarly required by claim 11. See pages 5 through
7 of the brief and the reply brief. Appellant further argues
that Mantha does not teach or suggest an address determinator as
required by claim 8. See pages 7 and 8 of the brief and the
reply brief.
Claim 8 recites:
an address determinator that identifies a second reference;
a data transferrer that receives the object and transfers it
to the second reference; and, a reference replacer that
replaces the first reference with the second reference.
The Examiner agrees that Mantha does not teach determining a
second reference locator that references a target location in a
second file system, placing a copy of the object at the target
location in the second file system, and replacing the first
locator in the document with the second reference locator as
required by claims 1 and 11. However the Examiner argues that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made for the second locator to
reference a target location in a second file system and to
incorporate a target location in Mantha because such a
modification will enhance the ability of the user to be directed
to another location if the Web page content and/or file is
present on the client. For claim 8, the Examiner states that
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007