Appeal No. 2006-1860
Application No. 08/813,714
We additionally agree with the examiner’s findings (answer, pages 4-5) that:
each of the resources (files) having at least one of the profiles (entry/entries in
virtual catalog 150.00) associated therewith, wherein each of the profiles (entry)
includes a description (attributes/fields such as File_name) and a location
(File_source) of the associated resource, and wherein each of the profiles, when
created, is assigned to a category (searchable field(s), such as that represented by
name, or extension of name); [col. 13-14, table 2]
and that
one or more user computers (administrator workstation 160 including GUI 165,
user workstation 170) interconnected with (via network-linking backbone 105)
the regional and local servers [fig. 1], and including means for storing the profiles
of the resources into one or more of the regional servers (domain-wide scan for
virtual catalog snapshots via administrator interface GUI 165), means for
searching the profiles stored in the regional servers (search virtual catalog 150.00)
[col. 15, lines 24-51; col. 16, lines 52-67] by category (searchable fields such as
that represented by name, or extension of name) [col. 15, lines 35-51], and means
for requesting the delivery of resources associated with the local servers
(transfer/migrate files performed via GUI 165) based on the searched profiles
(after consulting virtual catalog 150.00 via GUI 165) [table 3 and denoting text;
col. 22, lines 61-67; col. 24, lines 62-67].
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claim 15 is sustained. The obviousness
rejections of claims 16 through 22 are sustained because appellant has not presented any
patentability arguments for these claims apart from those presented for claim 15 (brief,
page 7; reply brief, page 3).
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 15 through 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007