Appeal No. 1999-2841
Application No. 08/655,133
section 103 rejection of claims 9 and 13 through 15, since the claims depend from claim
1 or 10.
Instant claim 16 also requires a database at the called station. The Drori
reference as applied does not remedy the deficiencies we find in Lemelson. We do not
sustain the section 103 rejection of claims 16 through 18 over Lemelson and Drori.
Instant claim 19 recites the “originating station including a query for searching
information stored at individual stations....” Since we are not convinced that there is any
“searching” of memory at Lemelson’s remote station, for the reasons set forth
previously herein, we do not sustain the section 102 rejection of claims 19 through 21.
Claim 25 recites establishing communications “when information stored at a called
station satisfies a search query sent by a calling station.” We do not sustain the section
102 rejection of claims 25 and 26, because there has been no showing of a “search
query” in the Lemelson reference.
We reach the opposite determination with respect to claim 24, however.
Appellant refers us (Brief at 10) to the specification, alleging that the term “query is
always used in a context which involves a search of a database.” Even if true, however,
that “query” may be used in a particular “context” is not dispositive. Appellant has not
pointed to any special definition of the term set out in the specification.
Claim 24 recites instructions for sending a communicating station to other
stations “including a query against information stored at said other stations,” and
instructions for receiving a response from only individual stations “at which information
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007