Appeal No. 2002-2318
Application 09/652,520
disclosure. Id. Rather, the obviousness determination must
take into account only knowledge that was within the level
of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made. Id.
But here, for the reasons noted previously, there is nothing
on the record before us to suggest that the examiner’s
combination of Pirolli with Pouschine was based on anything
other than knowledge gleaned solely from appellants’
disclosure.
Moreover, even if Pirolli were properly combinable with
Pouschine, all recited limitations of the independent claims
would still not be met essentially for the reasons advanced
by appellants. We agree that Pirolli’s “activation
threshold” is used for determining the most visited web
pages as part of a web-page relevance prediction process.
The reference simply does not teach or suggest determining
the number of descendants of a member in a multidimensional
database to determine whether an aggregated data measure
should be determined and stored. Thus, even if the
references were combined, the rejection would not teach or
suggest all limitations recited in the independent claims.
For this reason alone, the rejection is improper and must be
reversed.
Furthermore, because the examiner’s rejection of the
dependent claims is based upon the improper combination of
Pouschine and Pirolli, the rejection of the dependent claims
is likewise improper for the same reasons noted above.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007