Appeal No. 2002-0648
Application 09/090,698
and 12 of the answer emphasizes this in the context of the common
address component "HTML." This is clearly considered to be an
invalid address portion according to the showing in Figure 6 of
Earl, which is also the most specific, the one that is first
removed according to Earl's teachings.
We turn to the features of dependent claims 11, 23 and 35
which respectively depend from independent claims 10, 22 and 34.
This set of claims is the last argued set in the first stated
rejection. Appellant's arguments appear at pages 13 and 14 of
the brief.
Implicitly, representative claim 11 on appeal includes the
capability of matching a removed common address component name
to a list of domains whose common address portion has also been
removed and presenting such a match to the user. We are
unpersuaded of the patentability of these claims with respect to
the arguments presented at pages 13 and 14 of the brief. The
examiner correctly makes reference to certain portions of Nielsen
in the corresponding arguments at pages 12 and 13 of the answer.
It is clear that both references to Earl and Nielsen provide
inherent comparison or matching operations yielding the
respective validity, invalidity determinations according to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007