Appeal No. 2004-1148
Application No. 09/374,694
caching the copy of the information resource in dependence
upon a semantic type associated with the information resource.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Rubin et al. (Rubin) 6,061,763 May 09, 2000
Appellant's admitted prior art at pages 1-4 of the specification
(AAPA)
Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
as being anticipated by AAPA.
Claims 1 through 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 17 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Rubin.
Claims 6, 9, 11, and 18 through 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 13,
mailed November 26, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellant's Brief (Paper
No. 12, filed September 13, 2002) for appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007