Appeal No. 2004-1548
Application 09/127,954
We agree with appellant that claims 7, 10, and 20 include
limitations not found in claim 1 and, thus, do not stand or fall
together with claim 1. Since the examiner provides a token
argument for these other claims, we will not remand for the
examiner to address these claims.
Group 1: Claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 19
The examiner finds that Matsumoto substantially discloses
the invention of claim 1 including a network system for managing
information about documents stored thereon (R2). The examiner
finds that Matsumoto does not describe the storage device or the
meta-information table being integrated in the server machine,
but that Hashimoto discloses an analogous collection/presentation
system where the server has document data 110, a document
information management unit 113 and a document database 114 (R3).
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
integrate these items into Matsumoto's server to "expedite the
retrieval of requested documents on the server" (R3).
Appellant argues (Br5):
[B]ased on the teachings of Matsumoto, there would be no
motivation to add document storage capability to the server
of Matsumoto because storing documents in the server is not
necessary for operation of the system described in
Matsumoto. In Matsumoto documents are created by a client 1
and the documents are stored on the external memory 16 of
the client 1. In Matsumoto, the server would not expect the
client to make a request for the stored documents, since the
documents are stored on the external memory 16 of the
client 1 and not on a document storage unit of the
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007