Appeal No. 2000-2012
Application No. 08/937,354
of the first analysis. The breadth of the instant claims easily reads on the use of the
same query or result set which has been saved in combination with an updating of the
database at a later point in time. Here, the new (updated) data in the database is all
that needs to be searched and combined with the prior results. We take OFFICIAL
NOTICE that the USPTO APS search system from the 1980's and 1990's had the
ability to save both line numbers from queries (“L” numbers) and search results sets
(“S” numbers) that were repeatedly used by examiners to reduce lengthy database
searches that were the same or similar and then to use them in combination with new
search terms or in combination with other saved results sets. In the APS system the
skilled patent examiner performed the determination of appropriateness of the searches
and division of searches into smaller and reusable queries and results sets and
combinations thereof. We find that this too would have been an anticipatory reference.
With respect to independent claims 14 and 15, appellants elected to group these
claims with independent claim 1, but appellants have also provided brief arguments
directed to these claims. (See brief at page 8.) Rather than merely group these claims
with independent claim 1, we will address appellants’ arguments. With respect to
independent claim 14, appellants argue that the examiner has not addressed step (e) of
claim 14 which determines whether the second analysis can be synthesized as a
combination of the first result and third result. We agree with appellants and do not find
that the examiner has identified a teaching of a determining step with respect to claim
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007