Appeal No. 2002-1707 Page 7
Application No. 09/211,527
are not persuaded that the combination would have suggested highlighting the
searched terms based on the contents of the rule base. To the contrary, we believe that
the searched terms would have been highlighted based on an associated "search
engine query using . . . user-entered text. . . ." Belfiore, abs., l. 14. Because we are
uncertain on what portion of Shewd the examiner reads the claimed session dependent
data, moreover, we are not persuaded that the combination would have suggested
highlighting the searched terms based on session dependent data. Therefore, we
reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 9; of claims 2, 7, 8-13, and 43, which depend
therefrom; on claim 23; of claims 16, 21-27, and 44, which depend therefrom; on
claims 37; and on claims 30, 35,3 36, 38-41, and 45, which depend therefrom.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 2, 7, 8-13 16, 21-27, 30, 35-41, and 43-45
under § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
3Although claim 35 recites in pertinent part "[a] computer program product
according to Claim 29," the latter claim has been canceled. (Paper No. 3 at 3.)
Consequently, we treat claim 35 as instead depending from claim 37.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007