Appeal 2007-2131
Application 10/401,331
Appellants further argue that neither Ishii nor Culbert teaches an
“identification means for identifying one or more content files in content
storage that are candidates for archiving based on access information,” as
claimed (Br. 12, see also claim 16).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner, as finder of fact, has found
Ishii teaches an identification means (Fig. 1, block 102) for identifying one
or more content files in content storage (Fig. 1, block 130) that are
candidates for archiving based on access information (Fig. 2, block 220 and
col. 6, ll. 1-6), as claimed (Answer 4). The Examiner has found that
archiving and unarchiving data, as claimed, are equivalent to compressing
and decompressing data (id.). The Examiner contends that a compressed file
is inherently archived because it includes all the same elements as archiving
(Answer 10, ¶1). The Examiner has further interpreted archive storage as a
different or separate memory from content storage (Answer 10, ¶2). The
Examiner has acknowledged that Ishii does not explicitly teach storing the
archived, compressed files in a separate archive storage unit (Answer 4).
However, the Examiner finds that storing archived and unarchived data in
separate memories was well known in the art of computer science at the time
of the invention, as evidenced by Culbert (Answer 4).
Claim Construction
We begin our analysis by construing the scope of the claim term
“archive” (claim 16). With respect to the reliance upon a dictionary
definition of the term “archive” by both the Examiner and Appellants, we
note that our reviewing court has determined that extrinsic evidence is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013