Appeal No. 2002-0822
Application No. 09/021,362
performing a search of a database based upon the predetermined
content of the information whereby a database search result is
obtained; and
determining whether a time period has been reached, wherein if
the time period is not reached, storing the database search
result, and if the time is reached, delivering the database
search result and the information to the remote device.
References
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Dunn et al. 5,861,906 Jan. 19, 1999
(filed May 5, 1995)
Vaughan et al. 5,926,207 Jul. 20, 1999
(filed Mar. 31, 1997)
Legall et al. 6,005,565 Dec. 21, 1999
(filed Mar. 25, 1997)
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1-15, 18-26, 28-35, 38-46, 48-55 and 58-64 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Dunn.
Claims 16, 36, 56 and 65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn in view of Legall.
Claims 17, 37, 57 and 66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn in view of Vaughan.
Throughout our opinion, we make reference to the briefs1 and
the answer for the respective details thereof.
1
1 Appellant filed an appeal brief on October 5, 2001.
Appellant filed a reply brief on February 12, 2002. The Examiner
mailed out an Office communication on February 21, 2002, stating
that the reply brief has been entered.
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007