Appeal 2007-0731
Application 09/899,454
1 Additional reference relied upon by the Board of Patent Appeals and
2
3 Interferences
4
5 Pitkow US 7,031,961 B2 Apr. 18, 2006
6 (filed Dec. 4, 2000)
7
8 REJECTION AT ISSUE
9 Claims 1 through 6, 8 through 18, 20 through 30, and 32 through 36 stand
10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ryan and Pitkow. The
11 Examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 3 through 9 of the Answer. Claims 7,
12 19, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ryan,
13 Pitkow, and Burke. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on page 10 of the
14 Answer. Throughout the opinion we make reference to the Brief and Reply Brief
15 (filed March 28, 2006 and August 14, 2006 respectively), and the Answer (mailed
16 June 14, 2006) for the respective details thereof.
17 ISSUES
18 Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection based upon Ryan and
19 Pitkow under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error. Specifically, Appellants argue that
20 Ryan teaches use of tracking transmission rates only in the context of search
21 engine algorithms. Appellants further argue that there is no suggestion in Ryan to
22 display the transmission rates of bookmarked documents at a receiving station.
23 (Br. 7, Reply Br. 2-3). Appellants assert that Pitkow does not make up for this
24 deficiency. (Br. 8).
25 The Examiner contends that the rejection is proper. The Examiner states
26 that Ryan’s “Personal hit-lists” suggests using Ryan’s system with bookmarks, and
27 that Pitkow teaches using bookmarks at a web page receiving station. The
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013