Appeal No. 2000-0190
Application No. 08/784,224
viewer (personal retrieval function) 21 functions. Similarly, by entering a
word expressing the concept of any stratum relating to documents from
the client environments 20 side, a document viewer (document retrieval
function) 22 functions, and by entering a word expressing the function of
any stratum relating to the work from the client environments 20 side, a
work viewer (work retrieval function) 23 functions, and thus various
retrieval functions are provided. That is, the client environments 20 are
composed so that the database functions may be retrieved by using the
lower concepts of the seven basic concepts of person, organization,
article, document, meeting and event, and actions as retrieval keys. ( Col.
20, line 61-col. 21, line 26)
We agree with the examiner that Oku teaches the basic interaction between a client
and server to search a database at the server.
Appellant argues that the examiner “oversimplies the inventive concepts” of
appellant’s invention. (See brief at page 7.) We disagree with appellant; rather we find
that the language of appellant’s claimed invention is quite broad. Appellant argues that
Oku fails to teach the knowledge matrix to store status information. (See brief at page
8.) The examiner maintains that the indices would show what information is available
and where it is located. We agree with the examiner.
Appellant disputes the examiner’s position with respect to indices and requests
specific references to support the examiner position. Additionally, appellant argues that
the examiner has relied upon hindsight to reconstruct appellant’s claimed invention.
(See reply brief at page 4.) While we agree with the examiner’s position, we include the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007