Appeal No. 2005-0004
Application No. 09/135,230
Appellants argue, on page 8 of the brief, that neither Gauvin nor Little teaches
accessing a configuration table that is stored locally. Further, appellants state “[t]he
examiner appears to admit that Gauvin et al. lacks any teaching of a configuration table.
The Examiner instead relies upon Little et al. as teaching a configuration table. While
Little et al. does teach a configuration table 20, the configuration table 20 described in
Little et al. does not store ‘connection information.’” Further, on page 9 of the brief,
appellants argue “Gauvin et al. fails to teach or suggest accessing a configuration table
that resides in the client machine to locate connection information that is stored in the
configuration table indexed by at least part of a particular network address.”
The examiner’s response to these arguments, on page 5 of the answer, states
“Gauvin specifically teaches storing the table (database 300) locally on the client
machine. (See col. 4, lines 5-7).
We concur with the examiner. As stated supra we find that Gauvin teaches a
database which contains connection information which is accessed to establish network
connections with individual servers. Though, Gauvin does not teach the specific data
structure implemented in the database, Gauvin does teach that the database is stored
on the client machine. Further, as stated supra we find that Little suggests to the skilled
artisan that the database of Gauvin should be in the form of a table indexed by address.
For the forgoing reasons we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and the
claims grouped with claim 1 in Group A, claims 2 through 8.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007