Appeal No. 2007-0220
Application No. 09/982,640
of an associative search engine 18 in Figure 1 and 40 in Figure 2 relates to
the ability of Skillen to retrieve related information to that which may be
specifically recited in a search query of a user. Indeed, the Examiner has
pointed specifically to the teachings of fuzzy logic to the extent recited in
some of the dependent claims on appeal that is taught in Skillen. As to the
meanings attributed to the words “connotations” and “demographics,”
Skillen teaches related concepts at column 2, lines 44 through 58; column 3,
lines 1 through 19; column 4, lines 64 through column 5, line 6; and column
6, lines 28 through 45. As the nature of the search process proceeds from
the initial search through and to a refined search, the artisan would
appreciate that so-called “targeted” information is sought or searched for.
Skillen even teaches the ability to determine synonyms by use of the
logical “OR” at column 1, lines 19 through 25 and the alternate descriptions
discussion there in addition to the teachings at column 3, lines 20 through 28
and column 5, lines 7 through 17 as well as the user profiles discussed with
respect to the system of Figure 1 and the database associated with these
profiles as element 48 in Figure 2.
As grouped by the Examiner at the bottom of page 3 of the Answer,
no arguments are presented in the Brief as to dependent claims 3, 8, 13, 20,
27, and 34. As to Appellant’s arguments at page 25 of the principal Brief on
appeal relating to dependent claims 6, 18, and 32, we have already pointed
out that the nature of the teachings of Skillen includes customers. As to
Appellant’s remarks at pages 26 and 27 of the principal Brief on appeal
relating to dependent claims 23 and 37, we emphasize again that the two
search engines recited in other dependent claims are not recited to be
different in the sense of the same associative search engine in Figures 1 and
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013