Appeal No. 2002-2011
Application No. 09/163,643
answer this question.
As such, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-6,
8-10, 12-21 and 23-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, noting that the
addition of Dolan, with regard to the rejection of claims 3, 4,
8, 10, 15, 16 and 25, does not provide for the deficiencies of
the combination of Burke, Maarek and Mantha.
Turning to the rejection of independent claim 7, the
examiner again points out that Burke teaches the associating of
related bookmarks (column 5, lines 42-50) and that Burke teaches
determining an affinity between two bookmarks (column 5, lines 8-
15).
However, the examiner notes that Burke does not specifically
teach the display of a second bookmark in response to a first
bookmark. The examiner turns to Maarek for a bookmark display
whereby the selection of a bookmark set results in a plurality of
related displayed bookmarks (page 11, Figure 5). The examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to apply Maarek to
Burke “because Maarek’s taught advantage of a lexical affinity
indexing scheme to provide increased precision to the bookmarking
association method of Burke,” (answer-page 13), citing Maarek,
page 6, paragraph 2.
Claim 7 does appear rather broad in nature and we can agree
-9–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007