Appeal No. 2004-1548
Application 09/127,954
information presentation apparatus (server) as recited in
claim 1.
The examiner responds that the external memory 16 is not for
the exclusive use of the client 1 and, according to Matsumoto,
the server has access to the memory 16 via the ID Table 27 and
the link information table 28, which are part of the storage
device 26 (EA3-4). The examiner refers to column 4, lines 12-19
and 24-29, and states (EA4):
Clearly from the foregoing textual portions of
Matsumoto, the tables 27 and 28 store control information to
store and retrieve documents in storage device 16. The
Examiner agrees with Appellant that since storage device 16
is accessible by the server through tables 27 and 28 to
store and retrieve documents, there would not be any
motivation for Matsumoto to add another document storage
device to the server.
Appellant argues that there was no agreement that the
storage device 16 is accessible by the server through tables 27
and 28 to store and retrieve documents and "[t]he server 2 in
Matsumoto is merely a record keeper for documents stored on the
external memories 16 of the clients 1 by the clients 1" (RBr3).
It is argued that server does not store documents: it is the
clients 1 that create, update, copy, and move documents (RBr3).
We do not agree with the examiner's finding that the storage
device 16 is accessible to the server 2 via tables 27 and 28.
The cited portions of Matsumoto merely show that the ID table 27
and the link information table 28 in the server's external memory
store copy relationship information about the documents in the
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007