Appeal 2007-0352
Application 09/996,130
OPINION
Generally for the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer, as
amplified upon here, we sustain the rejection of all claims on appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants present arguments as to independent claims 1,
11 and 21 collectively, from which we take claim 1 as representative. No
arguments are presented before us as to any dependent claims on appeal.
At the outset, we begin by noting that Appellants’ Specification page
1, lines 22 through 25, indicates that prior art approaches have been
developed to strategically “place often accessed data objects in a disk cache
thereby reducing access and download times. For example, ‘popular’ Web
pages may be placed in the disk cache to anticipate future access demands.”
We generally agree with the Examiner’s assessment of Herz and
Jacobs as they apply to the claimed invention. We especially note the
evidence provided by the Examiner’s identification of particular portions of
the respective references that correlate to each feature claimed in
representative independent claim 1 on appeal as expressed initially at pages
3 and 4 of the Answer as to the statement of the rejection of independent
claim 1 on appeal and the corresponding responsive remarks at pages 7 and
8 of the Answer.
We part company slightly from the Examiner’s positions by noting the
discussion at the middle of column 8 of Herz’s pre-caching of data teaches
the concept of caching at the end of representative independent claim 1 on
appeal whereas the Examiner believes at the top of page 4 of the Answer
that Herz fails to teach a server cache. Indeed prior art figure 1 and system
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013