Appeal No. 2000-2012
Application No. 08/937,354
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 15, mailed Feb. 15, 2000) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 14, filed Jan. 19, 2000) for appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
At the outset, we note that appellants have elected to group the claims as set
forth in the brief at page 8. Therefore, we will select a representative claim from each
group and address the examiner’s rejection thereto.
35 U.S.C. § 102
With respect to group one, we select independent claim 1 as the representative
claim. Appellants argue that Abraham is directed to a system that reuses the same
query repeatedly and the present invention saves partial and/or complete results from a
request to be used as an input to the process of responding to a subsequent request.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007