Appeal 2007-1051
Application 10-161428
al. is silent with regard to a bulletin board that receives requests, … and
comprises a list storing received requests,…; and an access layer that
regulates access by a plurality of nodes to the list.” (Br. 6) and 2) “…but
nowhere does the [Teng] reference show that the aging of requests is a
function of demand of an item associated with a request”. (Br. 7).
We find that Traversat does teach that the nodes of a P2P network
receive requests for information and, using the rendezvous nodes and other
devices, satisfy that request with resources across the network. (¶ 0014 ff).
However, we do not find in Traversat that the requests are stored in the
manner claimed. The stored information, defined as “advertisements” in
Traversat (¶ 0026), contains information on resources available across the
network “including … peers, peer groups, services, content, pipes and pipe
endpoints”. We find that request for this information may be reviewed (¶
0091) (¶ 0114), may be aged, as defined by the Specification (¶ 0028 and
0296), and may be passed through a security layer (¶ 0029 and 0328).
However, we do not find in Traversat the storage of the queries on lists, as
claimed by the Appellant. We have considered Examiner’s arguments
concerning the persistence of the caching of the requests, and though this
may create the ability in the structure of the reference to create a list of the
requests, we are not persuaded that the reference teaches actually doing so.
Indeed, as the reference teaches a system of storing advertisements that is
significantly similar to that disclosed as “prior art” in Appellant’s
Specification, we are not persuaded that it would have been obvious over the
teachings of Traversat to create the requests-based system that he claims.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013