Appeal No. 2000-0935
Application 08/567,447
According to independent claims 8 and 14, raw business
information must be parsed to yield key words usable for
accessing abstracts of that information. According to
independent claim 12, raw business information must be parsed
to create abstracts to be stored in a database and a search
engine is provided to access key words in a table that is
linked to the stored abstracts. These features have not been
accounted for by the examiner. Moreover, with regard to the
“business” aspect of information, the examiner has not pointed
to “abstracts” of any type of information, in the prior art
applied in the rejections, business or otherwise.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1, 3,
6-7, 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable for
obviousness over Spencer cannot be sustained, and the
rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable for obviousness over Spencer and Johnson also
cannot be sustained.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-7, 12-14 and 16-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable for obviousness over
Spencer is reversed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007