Appeal No. 2006-2584
Application No. 09/797,754
26).
In response to appellants’ argument that the database records of Fish are
not “documents,” the examiner states that Fish “does use spreadsheets, tables
and graphics” which correspond to a document (answer-page 13). Thus, the
examiner now appears to rely on spreadsheets, graphics and tables of Fish as
some extension of “documents.”
Even if spreadsheets, graphics and tables in Fish could be considered
“documents,” as claimed, there is no evidence these elements are assigned any
scores based on their usage or that they are organized based on assigned scores.
Thus, it appears, as stated by appellants at page 3 of the reply brief, that the
examiner is taking the feature of one element (usage frequency of a database
record), and somehow trying to infer that this feature belongs to other elements
(e.g., spreadsheets, HTML Web pages, graphics) as discussed in Fish.
We agree with appellants that the examiner does appear to inconsistently
apply the features of one element (usage frequency of a database record) to
other things (spreadsheets, HTML Web pages, graphics) within the reference.
As such, this is improper and we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-20,
25, 26, and 28-35 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007