Appeal No. 2002-1314
Application 09/412,902
than time of page access [brief, pages 3-4]. The examiner refers
to column 10, lines 56-68 of Courts and simply asserts that this
passage teaches the clustering of pages based on more than time
of page access [answer, page 4].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 9.
The portion of Courts relied on by the examiner states that pages
are clustered “which have previously exhibited a sequential time
sequence of first usage” [column 10, lines 58-60]. This passage
appears to suggest that the clustering of pages is based on a
time of page access as argued by appellants. It is not apparent
to us how the examiner has interpreted this passage to represent
a relationship that is “more than time of page access” as recited
in claim 9. The examiner has failed to elaborate on his position
and to rebut appellants’ argument with an explanation as to why
the clustering described in Courts meets the recitation of “more
than time of page access” as claimed. Since the portion of
Courts relied on by the examiner does not appear to disclose the
claimed invention, and since the examiner has failed to explain
why he deems his position to be correct, we are constrained to
reverse the examiner’s rejection based on this record.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007