Appeal No. 2006-2513
Application No. 10/060,782
Appellant=s arguments in defense of claim 3 seem to contend that the teachings
of Minich are limited to searching for content on the World Wide Web. Minich, however,
shows that the artisan was well acquainted with Boolean operators that may be
represented by characters such as a plus or a minus symbol. We find no error in the
conclusion that it would have been obvious to use Aa subtraction symbol@ as claimed for
the convenience of the user. The subtraction symbol was well known as an operator for
exclusion of content. Moreover, the subtraction symbol was well known in general
mathematics (as appellant notes at page 30 of the specification), and chosen by
appellant for what it represents to the human mind than for any improvement of
machine function.
We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 3. We also sustain the rejection of
claim 4 which, by its terms -- i.e., what the subtraction symbol Aindicates to a user@ -- is
directed to nonfunctional descriptive material.
In response to appellant=s arguments in the Brief, the examiner clarifies the
rejection of claim 10 in the Answer. Appellant reproduces the Aif@ clauses of the claim in
the Reply Brief, and alleges that the references do not teach or suggest any of the
features contained within the Aif@ clauses. However, claim 10, by its terms, does not
require any of the features within the Aif@ clauses. That is, reciting that Aif@ something is
to occur does not require its occurrence. As such, the claim has not been shown to
distinguish over the applied references. We sustain the rejection of claim 10.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013