Appeal 2007-2116
Application 10/318,000
Moreover, what a reference teaches is a question of fact. In re Baird,
16 F.3d 380, 382, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Beattie,
974 F.2d 1309, 1311, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Appellants
have not demonstrated error in the Examiner’s findings with respect to what
the Freeman reference conveys to the skilled artisan.
As if recognizing the weakness of the post hoc arguments that are
inconsistent with Appellants’ own disclosure, Appellants submit a new
argument in the Reply Brief. Appellants note that subsystem 300 in
Freeman, which uses the dynamic store 240, is an integral part of a server.
According to a definition offered by Appellants, a “client” is a “computer or
program that can download files or run applications from a file server.”
Appellants contend that Freeman discloses dynamic store 240 to be a global
database, rather than a file server. The reference is deemed, therefore, as
failing to disclose the first “client” device of instant claim 1. (Reply Br. 4-
5.)
Appellants do not, however, address the Examiner’s reasonable
explanation (Answer 12) as to why software module (subsystem 300) may
be considered a “client device” in the context of the reference. Moreover,
Freeman discloses that dynamic store 240 may be physically implemented in
the local memory of a single server 180. Freeman col. 7, ll. 6-12. We find
subsystem 300 to be within the meaning of a “client device,” even if limited
to Appellants’ offered definition -- which, we note, reflects a single general
dictionary entry that does not establish the broadest reasonable interpretation
of the term as understood by the artisan. In any event, Freeman describes
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013