Appeal No. 2004-1548
Application 09/127,954
external memory 16 of the clients 1, not that server 2 accesses
the memory 16. There is no indication that the server 2 has or
needs access to documents in the memory 16. That the server 2
could be modified to have access to memory 16 is a different
issue and would require motivation for the modification.
The examiner also disagrees with appellant's argument that
the server would not expect the client to make a request for
stored documents because "Matsumoto teaches that based on a
request from the client, ID table 27 reads information regarding
a requested document and fetches it to the client" (EA4),
referring to column 4, line 66, to column 5, line 4, column 7,
lines 39-56, and column 9, lines 11-17.
We also disagree with this finding. The examiner does not
appreciate that a request by a client 1 is not a "request for the
stored documents." The server 2 only maintains information
regarding the copy relationship of documents, where the documents
are stored on external memory 16 to the clients 1. Client
machines 1 are the document processing apparatuses,
server machine 2 manages the copy relationship of documents, and
a network 3 connects these machines (col. 3, lines 1-6). When a
new document is created, the user gives it a name and the
document creation section 10 on the client 1 requests and
receives a new document ID from server 2, attaches the ID to the
document along with the date and time of creation, the location,
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007