Appeal No. 2002-2011
Application No. 09/163,643
Moreover, even if we assume, arguendo, that Maarek might be
considered to suggest the display of a second bookmark in
response to a user selecting a first bookmark, we find no reason
apparent in the applied references, or in the knowledge of
skilled artisans, for employing such a teaching in order to
modify Burke in any manner. The examiner’s allegation of a
motivation in the “advantage of a lexical affinity indexing
scheme to provide increased precision...” is not persuasive since
there is no reason to believe that the “lexical affinity indexing
scheme” of Maarek would be applicable to Burke’s system or that
it would “provide increased precision,” as alleged by the
examiner.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 7,
27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
-11–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007