Appeal No. 2002-1844
Application 08/975,428
in order to allow more efficient storage, search, and retrieval
of data for the subsequent data analysis in the Hyodo and Gerace
systems" (FR6; EA5).
Appellants argue: (1) Hyodo is nonanalogous art (Br11-12);
(2) there is no suggestion or motivation to modify Hyodo to
provide "parsing, categorizing, indexing, and formatting the data
elements" as suggested by the examiner (Br13-14); and (3) even if
Hyodo were modifiable, it would still fail to disclose or teach
all limitations of the rejected claim 1, in particular, the
preamble and steps (a), (b), (d), and (e) (Br14-16).
The examiner responds to these arguments (EA16-23).
We address appellants' and the examiner's positions in the
context of addressing claim 1.
The examiner has not explained, with the kind of specificity
we expect, how claim 1 reads on Hyodo or provided any special
claim interpretations. Merely pointing to column 3, lines 38-67,
and column 2, lines 39-46, is not helpful. Nevertheless, we read
claim 1 onto Hyodo as follows.
Hyodo describes "on-line shopping using the Internet"
(col. 1, line 1) and a "method that will enable a service
provider to determine the effectiveness of on-line advertising in
on-line shopping using a network" (col. 1, lines 63-65). Online
advertising and online shopping (without purchasing) on the
Internet are broadly considered electronic commerce (e-commerce).
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007