Appeal 2007-3518
Application 10/995,295
ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Claim 1 recites “storing in an
apparatus a contents identifier to identify predetermined contents, the
contents identifier being stored by a browser of the apparatus which is
separated from a server system by a network connector.” We note that claim
1 does not identify in what type of memory or what form of file the contents
identifier is stored. As discussed above, the Examiner has interpreted this
limitation broadly as to include writing to registers, caches, buffers, and
queues in a computer system. We find this interpretation to be a broad, but
reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation of storage. We further
consider the claim recitation to broadly include the browser initiating a
command which writes data to one of the above listed storage locations as in
typical computers the operating system of the device is responsible for the
procedures in storing data.
We find numerous operations discussed in Meyer, which involve the
browser performing operations which require the operating system to
perform storage of data that includes a contents identifier. Meyer, in column
5, lines 3-6 (a section of Meyer cited by Appellants on page 6 of the Brief),
identifies that the communication application may add additional
information to the identifier provided by the decoder before forwarding the
message. (Fact 6). While we do not agree with the Examiner’s inference
that Johnson is evidence that Meyer inherently has a buffer (which stores
data) prior to transmitting, we do agree with the Examiner’s finding that one
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013