Appeal No.2004-1526
Application No. 09/354,052
specification to narrow the terms of the claim more than the
plain language of the claim requires.
Appellant also argues that the term “local,” in “local
storage” has a different meaning than the one given to the term
by the examiner, and that the mass storage 17 in Vora cannot be
considered to be a “local storage.” Specifically, appellant
wants us to read into the claim the example given at page 2 of
the specification, wherein the “user must open a local search
tool. . . .” Appellant wishes us to interpret “local” to include
only “in the same computer” as illustrated in the passage cited
from page 2 of the specification (see pages 10-11 of the brief).
Again, we find that appellant gives too narrow an interpretation
to the instant claims language. Mass storage 17 in Vora is
clearly “local” to server 9, and does not need to reside in the
user’s computer 33. We find no language in claim 1 requiring an
interpretation as urged by appellant.
Since, in our view, the examiner has presented a reasonable
case of anticipation with regard to the subject matter of instant
claim 1, which has not been convincingly rebutted by appellant,
we will sustain the rejections of claims 1, 4, 12, 13, 16, 24,
27, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) or 103, in accordance with
appellant’s grouping of the claims at page 5 of the brief.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007