Appeal 2007-0459
Application 10/285,927
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner finds the argued language of
the claim (i.e., “configuring said search to be automatically updated
periodically”) is suggested by Barr’s teaching of “‘schedulers 144 [that]
monitor and queue the searches performed by [the] search engines’ (Col. 21,
ll. 20-21)” (Answer 14).
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or
on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.”
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). In the instant case, we agree with the Examiner that Barr’s
automated system for identifying and retrieving text (and multi-media files)
related to a search topic reasonably suggests the portion of the claim argued
by Appellants (col. 1, ll. 7-9). We find the preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s finding that Barr’s use of “schedulers 144” (col. 21,
l. 20) suggests the tendency for searches to recur at planned intervals (i.e.,
suggesting periodicity). Furthermore, we note that Barr teaches a document
system that automatically (i.e., without human intervention) determines the
subject categories for each received document for storage in a system
database:
Referring now to FIG. 10, there is shown an automatic docket
subjecting system 1000. The automatic document subjecting
system 1000 receives documents processed by the data
preparation component 900 and stored in a document pool 1004.
The automatic document subjecting system 1000 automatically
determines the subject category of the received documents
without any review of the received document by a human
viewer. It will be understood that the automatic document
subjecting performed within the data center 110 thus eliminates
the need for the laborious and time consuming subjecting
operations performed in the prior art wherein humans reviewed
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013