Appeal No. 2006-1860
Application No. 08/813,714
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Pisello in view of Miller and Terry.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will sustain the
obviousness rejections of claims 15 through 22.
We agree with the examiner’s findings (answer, pages 4 and 5) that Pisello
describes a plurality of servers grouped into interconnected regional servers 150 and local
servers 110 through 140, wherein the regional servers serve a region (i.e., domain 190)
and hold one or more profiles in virtual catalog 150.00 for resources (i.e., files)
associated with the local servers within the region (Figure 1; Tables 1 and 2). The
resources are stored in physical memory resources in the centralized domain management
system as soft resources, and the soft resources are downloadable from the local servers.
The examiner relied on the secondary reference to Miller for a teaching of soft
resources as well as physical resources, and we agree with the examiner’s findings
(answer, pages 5 and 6) that the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to combine
the teachings of Pisello and Miller. On the other hand, we find that the skilled artisan
would have known from the teachings of Pisello that physical resources (e.g., the
physical memory on which the soft resources are stored) cannot be downloaded from the
local servers.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007