Appeal No. 2002-2011
Application No. 09/163,643
Appellants further argue that Mantha merely discloses the
use of linked lists to represent all of the outbound links in a
document and that while linked lists do arguably link together
embedded links in a document, these links are not bookmarks.
Further, appellants note that there is no determined “affinity,”
within the context of the instant invention, between Mantha’s
embedded links.
Accordingly, appellants conclude that not one of the applied
references discloses “associating the first bookmark with the
second bookmark by creating an affinity link responsive to the
affinity exceeding a predetermined threshold.”
While we do not necessarily agree with all of appellants’
arguments, we do agree with their conclusion that none of the
cited references disclose “associating the first bookmark with
the second bookmark by creating an affinity link responsive to
the affinity exceeding a predetermined threshold.”
It is clear to us, as the examiner points out, that Burke
does disclose a determination of an affinity between bookmarks
based upon a predetermined affinity criteria (e.g., “by theme and
topic” -column 5, lines 12-13). It may also be argued that
Mantha might suggest something about an affinity “link” since a
user activates a link to a pointer from a menu associated with a
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007