Appeal 2007-0244
Application 09/777,500
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellants’ Specification and claims, to the applied prior art
references, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellants and the
Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
that follow.
We note that Appellants main contentions are based in the
phraseology which the Examiner has used in the text of the rejection. Rather
that get lost in the Examiner’s terminology in the rejection, we look to what
the Examiner relies upon in the teachings of Chen and Jones, individually
and collectively, and the express claim language in dispute.
We note that the Examiner has withdrawn the objection to the
Specification as not providing antecedent basis for the claimed subject
matter in the Examiner’s Answer at page 3, but we note that Appellants have
not identified any express definition for these broad claim limitations which
appear to be supported generally from the Specification. Therefore, we give
these terms their ordinary and customary meanings.
Appellants argue that Chen teaches tightly coupled meta data servers
and media servers including continuous monitoring of the media servers by
the meta servers (Br. 3 and Reply Br. at 4-5). The Examiner maintains that
the portion of Chen cited by Appellants is different from those teachings set
forth in the rejection by the Examiner (Answer 4, 13, and 14). We agree
with the Examiner and find that Chen discloses a range of embodiments and
Appellants specifically argues different embodiments from those relied upon
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013