Appeal No. 2003-1025
Application No. 09/224,918
We have fully reviewed Appellants' disclosure as originally
filed and find nothing directed to performing the three sub-steps
at lines 8-11 of claim 1 when the given time is receipt of an
indication from a user. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not
persuasive.
Appellants also argue at page 8 of the brief that the
process of claim 1 of the instant application is shown in claims
1 and 18-22 from the PARENT from which the instant application
claims continuity. Claims 1 and 18-22 from the PARENT are
reproduced at page 7 of Appellants' brief. Appellants' argument
is not persuasive.
We have fully reviewed claims 1 and 18-22 from the PARENT
application and find nothing directed to performing the three
sub-steps at lines 8-11 of rejected claim 1 when the given time
is receipt of an indication from a user. Although we agree with
Appellants that inherently one process follows the other process,
as the data must be put into the cache before it can be removed
from the cache, the claims of the PARENT application do not
recite a given time for the tracking and updating of the access
cache. We find this to be consistent with the language of
Appellants' specification at page 18 where the process that
removed data from the cache occurs "on a regular, periodic basis
to ensure security of the resources on the server." (Emphasis
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007