Appeal 2007-1340
Application 09/996,125
Graham Factors
The differences between the prior art and the claimed invention are
found in the claim limitation "allowing the user to digitally point to selected
designated potions [sic--portions] of the cached document and only loading
the designated portions of the cached document." Except as discussed here,
all other limitations of claim 1 are found in the prior art.
We find "little difference," KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1743, 82 USPQ2d at
1398, between the teachings of Acharya and Gong and the process recited by
claim 1. Specifically, the prior art does not show "allowing the user to
digitally point to selected designated potions [sic--portions] of the cached
document and only loading the designated portions of the cached document"
(differences in bold italics). (FF 11, 19.) In other words, the difference
between the claimed invention and the prior art reduces to the nature of the
document (i.e., a cached document) to which the user digitally points to
selected designated portions and only loads the designated portions.
As will be discussed, infra, in the prior art the user has the option to
select a portion of a document (FF 1, 6-9), but not specifically the option to
select a portion of a cached document (FF 11, 19). Also, the user does not
have control over whether the designated portions of the document will be
loaded from cache or from a different source. (FF 11, 19.) In the prior art,
that choice is made automatically under computer program control. (FF 7-9,
13.) Thus, the prior art does not show a user digitally pointing to selected
designated portions of a cached document and only loading those designated
portions of the cached document. (See FF 11, 19.)
In particular, Acharya broadly teaches giving the user control over the
process of selecting portions of a Web page for retrieval. After discussing
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013