Appeal 2007-0456
Application 10/135,412
reasonable interpretation of the claimed “type of target system” reads on Roberts’
disclosure of a real-time protocol (RTP) that indicates voice or video data intended
for particular types of target systems capable of processing the voice or video data
(Fig. 8 and Fig. 2, see also col. 8, ll. 40-46, col. 9, ll. 1-3, l. 47, col. 13, ll. 15-45).
We note that the patentability of each of independent claims 1, 11, 25, and
28 turns upon our findings regarding Issue 1. Because we find the preponderance
of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position on Issue 1, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 11, 25, and 28 as being anticipated
by Roberts.
Analysis of Issue 2
Appellant argues Roberts provides no express teaching that the endpoint
computer systems in Figure 2 are a storage system, web-based search engine, web
site, or information search service. Appellant further argues the Examiner has
failed to establish that such teaching is inherent in Roberts. Appellant asserts it
does not necessarily flow from Robert’s teaching of endpoint computer systems
that the computer systems include a storage system, web-based search engine, web
site, or information search service (Br. 25).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner points to the Specification that
indicates a “storage system” is broadly any system that interacts with a client and
either stores or retrieves data, such as raw-storage systems and various types of
disk drives (Specification 5). Therefore, the Examiner concludes the endpoint
computer systems disclosed by Roberts are equivalent to the claimed “storage
system” (Answer 27).
We agree with the Examiner that the language of the claim broadly but
reasonably reads on Roberts’ disclosure of multiple source and target computer
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013