Appeal 2007-0035
Application 09/924,036
limitations of a "content processing center," a "satellite," a "cache server,"
and "one or more client personal computers," as recited in claim 1 (Br. 7-9).
Appellants essentially argue that Burns does not teach, suggest, or
imply any of the limitations of claim 1. We disagree. Burns teaches the
claimed "satellite," "cache server," and "one or more client personal
computers" for the reasons stated by the Examiner (Answer 10-11). Burns
teaches that the network 54 is capable of supporting streaming video data
(col. 6, ll. 32-33) and that the network 54 might be implemented by satellite
(col. 6, ll. 22-25). Thus, Burns teaches "a satellite for transmitting the
streaming media presentation." The cache server 72 and continuous media
server (CMS) 74, which together may be considered a cache server, cache
Internet resources that have been downloaded from the content server 52
over the network 54 (col. 6, ll. 55-65), which include the streaming video
because this is the whole point of Burns. Thus, Burns teaches "a cache
server for receiving and storing the transmitted streaming media
presentation." The subscriber PCs coupled to the cache server 72/CMS 74
inherently must include browser software to access and display the
streaming media presentation (col. 8, ll. 6-9), otherwise the streaming media
stored in the cache server could not be accessed. The use of browser
software to access the stored media downloaded from the Web is not
disclosed in detail because it was so notoriously well known. Thus, Burns
inherently teaches "one or more client personal computers coupled to the
cache server that each comprise browser software for accessing the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013