Appeal 2006-3143
Application 09/897,383
In our view, either (1) the user’s initial selection and accompanying
request for the response image portion, or (2) the client’s subsequent IIP
request for the response image portion if the image is not cached fully meets
the claimed requesting step. In either case, additional parts (i.e., the
response image portion) are requested from the server when they are needed
to render the user’s selection.
Regarding claim 34, Appellants argue that Guedalia does not disclose
reading an image index file that comprises a map of components of the
image file as claimed. Appellants contend that Guedalia’s image map
merely appends X and Y coordinates to a URL and therefore is not an index
file as claimed: a distinct file that correlates segments of the codestream that
facilitates retrieving particular portions of the codestream (Br. 4-5; Reply Br.
5).
The Examiner responds that Guedalia’s image map corresponds to the
claimed “image index file.” The Examiner further argues that this image
index file is read in Guedalia in view of the request to the server following
the user’s clicking on the image map (Answer 9-10).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 34. At the outset,
we note that Appellants’ arguments pertaining to the image index file are not
commensurate with the scope and breadth of the claimed limitation. We
find that the server in Guedalia inherently hosts an “image index file” that
correlates the URL that includes the image’s X, Y coordinates sent from the
client (i.e., the “index file data”) with the appropriate response image portion
for retrieval and transmission to the client. See Guedalia, col. 24, ll. 25-33.
Claim 34 is therefore fully met by Guedalia.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013