Appeal 2007-2116
Application 10/318,000
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1-4, 8-12, 16-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Freeman.
2. Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Freeman.
3. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Freeman and Prasad.2
OPINION
Freeman describes server farms comprising servers 180 (Fig. 2A).
The farms include a persistent store 230 that maintains static data. Col. 6, ll.
31-54. The farms also include a dynamic store 240 for storing data that are
typically queried or changed frequently during runtime. Col. 6, l. 65 - col. 7,
l. 19.
The Examiner finds instant claim 1 to be anticipated by Freeman. The
statement of the rejection refers, in the main, to material at column 17 of the
reference that further describes dynamic store 240. (Answer 3-4.)
Appellants argue that Freeman does not disclose that a listing of
“object classes” is received, and further that the reference contains no
mention of object classes. As such, according to Appellants, Freeman
2 The Examiner does not list this ground of rejection in the Answer because
Appellants provide no separate arguments in the Appeal Brief addressing the
rejection, but elect to have claim 15 stand or fall with the claims rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Freeman (see Appeal Br. 9).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013