Appeal No. 2004-1148
Application No. 09/374,694
Regarding claims 6, 9, 11, and 18 through 20, the examiner
has presented no further evidence or reasoning as to why it would
have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Rubin to base
the criteria for caching on a semantic type associated with the
information resource. Therefore, we cannot sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 6, 9, 11, and 18 through 20.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) over AAPA, claims 1 through 5, 7, 8, 10,
and 12 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Rubin, and claims
6, 9, 11, and 18 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Rubin is
reversed.
REVERSED
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
APG:clm
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007