Appeal No. 2002-0648
Application 09/090,698
11 of the brief as a challenge to the examiner's previous
assertion that the use of search engines was known in the art.
The evidence provided by the examiner at page 10 of the answer,
which is not challenged by appellant in any reply brief since no
reply brief has been filed, indicates that it was well-known that
search engines were well-known in the art according to the
documents listed having a date of 1995, which clearly precedes
the filing date of this application. Even though we recognize
that the references relied on for the rejection do not clearly
teach or suggest the use of search engines, the evidence provided
by the examiner here indicates that such are well-known in the
art. It is also clear to us that the search engines may provide
a response as indicating a plurality of search results. In
closing as to these claims, we note that at least the Abstract
of Earl indicates that a modified resource identifier or address
clearly is used as a second address for accessing purposes at
least a second or a plurality of successive times according to
his teachings.
We turn now to the subject matter of independent claims 10,
22 and 34 which correspondingly recite methods, apparatus and
program products focusing upon the creation of a list of domains
and names by removing user-selected common address-components.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007