Appeal No. 2001-1528
Application No. 08/998,661
OPINION
Byrd describes an information retrieval system which may be implemented in a
client/server architecture (Fig. 1). The databases contain document collections having
one or more documents 141, which may be text only, text mixed with images, or any
other multi-media object. Col. 4, ll. 17-35. In the embodiment pictured in Figures 3A
through 3C, Figure 3A shows the display 200 after the user has submitted a query 125.
The user may select new criteria (Fig. 3B) to reorder the results. Figure 3C shows the
display 200 after the user reordering. Col. 5, ll. 29-37.
The reference details the preferred embodiment at column 5, line 38 et seq. In
Figures 3A through 3C, the document identifier is the document title. After an initial
query, or after user reordering, the user has one of several options as shown in the
flowchart of Figure 5. At step 595, the user may leave the query mode, either by
quitting the system or by retrieving one or more of the documents retrieved by the
query. Col. 7, ll. 23-28.
Appellant argues (Brief at 4) that, in the Byrd system, the user must take an
action, such as double clicking on a document reference in order to retrieve the
document itself. Appellant quotes extensively from the instant specification (id. at 4-5),
and then submits that “Byrd does not teach that the documents are automatically
retrieved from a server or automatically acted upon at the browser in that order.”
We acknowledge that differences exist between Byrd’s system and appellant’s
invention as disclosed. However, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007