Appeal 2007-0723
Application 10/310,527
dependent claims 5, 20 and may be viewed by the artisan as constituting
upload IDs of respective folders in accordance with the Appellants’ own
characterization of the admitted prior art. The entity names and entity
folders noted by the Examiner in the Answer as taught in Anderson are
consistent with these teachings.
To the extent Anderson does not teach explicitly and to the extent
Appellants’ own admitted prior art does not indicate either, the artisan would
have interpreted Anderson as implicitly keeping the same hierarchical file
structure known in the art upon transfer since it does not say so otherwise,
but further permits the user to create the user’s own. In this regard, the
Examiner’s reliance upon Needham is not misplaced even though the reader
may, at first blush, consider otherwise. As urged by the Examiner, a
consideration of the teaching value of Needham does clearly indicate that the
transfer of files is consistent with the pre-existing file structure upon which
it was created before it was sent. The discussion at page 1, column 1 of
Needham makes reference to the same prior art operating systems and file
structures as does Appellants’ own admitted prior art in which the artisan
would well appreciate in reading the nature of the operating systems utilized
by Anderson as well. The nature of file structures associated with each table
and the organization thereof as well as the hierarchy of them is discussed at
page 2, columns 1 and 2 of Needham and shown generally in figures 3
through 5. Figures 10, 12, and 15 through 17 illustrate the formation of
directories, subdirectories and their files as well at the trial web site and their
associated data structures being preserved as well upon being copied when
they are transferred to a production site and the like.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013