Appeal No. 2004-1463
Application 09/401,221
actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
by appellant [see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
The examiner has indicated how he finds the claimed
invention to be obvious over the collective teachings of Brendel
and Leighton [answer, pages 3-11]. With respect to independent
claims 1 and 4, appellant essentially argues that 1) there is no
motivating suggestion that the teachings of Brendel can be
incorporated with the teachings of Leighton as suggested by the
examiner, and 2) that the applied prior art fails to teach that
the main server requests over the Internet that the participating
server send the requested information over the Internet to the
client. With regard to the latter point, appellant argues that a
WAN, as suggested by Brendel, is not equivalent to the Internet
[brief, pages 12-31]. With respect to the first argument, the
examiner responds that the motivation for combining the
references resides in their mutual desire to make Internet
communications more efficient. With respect to the second
argument, the examiner responds that a WAN and the Internet are
both types of communication mediums used [answer, pages 11-14].
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007