Appeal No. 2002-1844
Application 08/975,428
into the constituent components, but this has already been done.
In any case, we do not see that Hyodo has need for "categorizing,
indexing, and formatting" the retrieved data or that this is
inherent: using parts of the stored data does not inherently
require these steps nor does there appear to be any need for
these steps. Hyodo merely uses data which has been stored in a
predetermined format which does not need to be categorized,
indexed, or formatted. Hyodo is not searching the web for data
to be analyzed which needs to be organized and stored for later
retrieval. If the examiner had applied a reference that dealt
with data mining on the web (web mining), the examiner's finding
of inherency would be persuasive (although, for purposes of
further judicial review, a reference should be provided). For
these reasons, we conclude that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness as to claim 1 and it
is not necessary to address the rest of the limitations of
claim 1 or the rest of appellants' arguments. The rejection of
claims 1, 3-15, 29-31, and 37 over Hyodo is reversed.
Claims 16-22 and 33-35
The examiner reads the "decision maker station" on column 4,
lines 3-11 of Hyodo; reads the "analysis module" on column 5,
lines 37-54, and column 6, line 61 to column 7, line 4; reads the
"data warehouse" on the log information storage at column 3,
lines 6-12; and reads the "mapping module" on column 5,
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007