Appeal No. 2004-1899
Application No. 09/608,469
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claim limitations are not present
in the disclosure of Beeler, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of independent claims 1, 24, and 45, nor of claims 3, 26-28, and 47-49
dependent thereon.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
dependent claim 2 (based on the combination of Beeler and Rao), and of dependent
claims 4, 5, 25, and 46 (based on the combination of Beeler and Marsland), we do not
sustain these rejections as well. In addressing the limitations in these dependent
claims, which are directed to various specific features such as internet connections and
Unix platforms, the Examiner looks to Rao and Marsland to remedy these deficiencies
in Beeler. For all of the reasons discussed supra, however, the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness since we find no teaching or suggestion in
Rao or Marsland that would overcome the innate deficiency of Beeler in disclosing the
particular claimed feature of client file system access through a target or network server
concurrent with file system transfer from a source server.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007