Appeal 2007-1576
Application 10/020,398
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1 through 3, 8 through 15, and 18 through 22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Delaney in view of Maddalozzo. The
Examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 3 through 10 of the Answer.
Claims 5 through 7, 16, 17, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Delaney in view of Maddalozzo and Pitts. The
Examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 3 through 10 of the Answer.
Throughout the opinion we make reference to the Brief and Reply Brief
(filed August 28, 2006 and December 12, 2006 respectively), and the Answer
(mailed November 15, 2006) for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
Appellant argues, on page 10 of the Brief, that the systems of Delaney and
Maddalozzo differ from the claimed invention. Appellant states:
In these caching systems, the first processor-based system decides it wants a
certain document and determines before it seeks it externally whether the
information is in a local cache. It never receives information from a second
processor-based system about something that would be sent if it was not
already locally cached. Thus, none of the cited references involve the
situation where the second processor-based system has something that it
would send and the first processor-based system decides whether or not to
accept the transmission or not.
This argument has not convinced us of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Representative claim 1 does not recite a limitation that the first processor based
system decides whether or not to accept a transmission. Rather, claim 1 recites a
first processor receiving information from a second processor. The first
information enables the processor to determine if there is sufficient second
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013