Appeal No. 2002-1109
Application 09/316,436
In the response to the arguments section (EA8-9), the
examiner sets forth a different correlation, as discussed by
appellant (RBr2-3).
We find the examiner's different correlation of claim 1
confusing and feel that the examiner could have done a better job
of explaining. Nevertheless, we find that step (a) is taught by
Haegele. The examiner found that Fig. 1 represents a "first
logging segment" and each indent (caption) to correspond to an
attribute; e.g., the word "Apparel" in Fig. 1, the caption for an
indent, is an attribute. The indents are hierarchical, as
indicated by the level of indentation shown in parentheses and
visually by the amount of the indentation, where each succeeding
level of indentation indicates a subordinate relationship; e.g.,
"Men's" is in a subordinate relationship to "Apparel," "Suits" is
in a subordinate relationship to "Men's," etc. Consider that
each line in Fig. 1 of Haegele corresponds to a line in
appellant's Fig. 1, so that Fig. 1 of Haegele is a "first logging
segment." The "attribute" is the word or words of the indent
("Apparel" or "Men's" or "Suits," etc.) and the "information
which indicates subordinate relationships between attributes" is
the indentation level shown in parentheses on the line. This
meets the limitations of step (a). The indentation information
from Fig. 1 is also present in Fig. 2, where the "attributes" are
again the word or words of the indent, and the "information which
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007