Appeal No. 1997-0920
Application 08/274,123
Examiner responded that "the appellant did not address the
fact that the limitations of claim 7 are substantially
disclosed by Kucera" (EA6) and that "appellant's assertions
about Dickinson et al's system are unfounded" (EA6-7).
We agree with Appellant's response that "[n]o attempt was
made by the Examiner to apply these elements [memory,
processor, and controller in Kucera] to claims 7-16 in detail
or to show that Kucera supplied any of the elements missing in
Dickinson . . ." (RBr5). Appellant's interpretation that the
rejection relies on Dickinson for the query processing and
relies on Kucera for the hardware is reasonable given that the
Examiner has failed to set forth where the claimed query
features were in Kucera.
For the reasons addressed in connection with claim 2, we
find that Dickinson does not disclose the claimed "match token
generator control module," "match token processing control
module," or "query processing control module." Even if the
Examiner were correct that Kucera disclosed everything but the
step of sorting match tokens, Dickinson does not disclose
sorting match tokens "according to the document identifier
information and the text symbol sequence information
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007