Appeal No. 2002-0288
Application No. 08/883,241
In fact, we think the admitted prior art, described at pages
1-2 of the instant specification, would meet the language of
instant claim 1 because the claim language does not preclude the
downloading of an entire remote web site (indicated to be prior
art at page 2 of the specification). This is so because an
entire remote web site will include a “deepest node level” which
is “the same as or below the level of the root node” and the
download of the entire remote web site will, in fact, result in
documents in the nodes on “levels that are in and between the
root node and the node at the deepest node level,” as claimed.
Again, we understand that appellants intended the
“designation” of a deepest node level to permit a selection which
might vary but, as broadly claimed, we view the language as
including an entire remote web site. As in the prior art, once
an entire remote web site is “designated,” the deepest node level
of the tree structure of that web site is “designated” and a
download of that entire remote web site will clearly result in
documents in the nodes on “levels that are in and between the
root node and the node at the deepest node level.”
While some of the dependent claims may contain limitations
distinguishing the claimed invention from that disclosed in the
applied references, appellants do not separately argue the merits
-10–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007