Appeal No. 2003-0706
Application No. 09/356,241
keyword. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, since the
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness, the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 27, 55, and 56,
as well as claims 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, and 57 dependent thereon, is
not sustained. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 17 and 18 which contain the
keyword weighting feature not taught or suggested by Shoham or Rose
as discussed supra.
Lastly, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 19 directed to the feature of
identifying a subset of records in a database which matches a
unique combination of keywords. This feature is recited in
combination with the accessing of a search request data structure
including a plurality of records, each record including a search
request parameter identifying such unique combination of keywords.
We agree with Appellants that the portion of Shoham cited by the
Examiner (column 5, lines 62-67 and column 6, lines 13-20) merely
provides a generalized discussion of the search and retrieval of
hyperlinked information. We find nothing in this portion of
Shoham, or elsewhere in the Shoham and Rose references, that would
teach or suggest the particular features set forth in claim 19.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007