Appeal 2007-0352
Application 09/996,130
Moreover, the titles of both references relate to customizing
identifying data and the accessibility of server-based data objects. The
cache system 104 in figure 1 of Jacobs correlates to the mass storage devices
of figure 1 and 2 of Herz and the discussion at Specification page 1 of the
prior art. It is stated at lines 48 and 49 of column 4 of Jacobs that this cache
system “caches data stored on server 102 for faster serving to clients.”
Therefore, the artisan would well appreciate the compatibility of the
teachings of both prior art references to achieve a unified system that would
operate in an expeditious manner to cache server-based data objects.
Lastly, it is apparent there is no merit to Appellants’ allegation that
there is no motivation to combine the respective teachings, and there is no
evidence to us of any impermissible hindsight utilized by the Examiner in
combining the respective teachings of the applied prior art. The remarks in
the Reply Brief appear to be essentially a restatement of the positions set
forth in the Brief. Those remarks in the Reply Brief as well make no
reference to the Examiner’s Responsive Arguments at pages 7 and 8 of the
Answer.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner rejecting all
claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013