Appeal No. 95-1682
Application 07/853,459
that the tokens are bases and that these tokens are lines in a
text.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim
20 but will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 18
and 19.
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Pustell, Maizel, Aho, Salton
and McCreight. Appellants's only argument is found on page 10
of the reply brief. There, Appellants argue that since there
is nothing in claims 21 and 22 that has anything to do with
the term weighting, Salton adds nothing to the rejection. The
Appellants then state that because claim 8 is patentable over
Pustell and Maizel and claim 20 is patentable over Pustell,
Maizel and Aho, then claims 21 and 22 are patentable as well.
As we have sustained the Examiner's rejection of
claims 8 and 20, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 21 and 22 for the same reason. Appellants have chosen
not to argue any of the specific limitations of claims 21 and
22 as a basis for patentability. We are not required to raise
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007