Appeal No. 2004-1148
Application No. 09/374,694
will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 20
over AAPA as well as the anticipation rejection of claims 1
through 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 17 and the obviousness
rejection of claims 6, 9, 11, and 18 through 20 over Rubin.
Each of the independent claims recites caching or processing
a resource copy in dependence upon a semantic type associated
with the information resource. As stated by the examiner
(Answer, page 7), "[t]he primary disagreement is what is meant by
the term 'semantic type.'" The examiner continues (Answer, page
8) that "where a claimed phrase is unclear, one may refer to the
specification to give life and meaning to the claimed phrase. In
the instant case, however, the phrase 'semantic type' is not
unclear." The examiner thereby defines "semantic type" as "data
type." The examiner further states (Answer, page 12) that
"equating 'semantic type' with arbitrary volatility actually
gives a meaning to the words 'semantic type' that is repugnant to
their ordinary meaning and contradictory to the examples in the
specification and is therefore not allowed."
We first note that the examples in the specification all
relate to the volatility perceived by a user and, therefore, a
definition of "arbitrary volatility" is not contrary to the
examples. Also, the examiner should realize that:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007