Appeal No. 2002-2321
Application 09/283,268
“Legal Resource Index”), the reference reads on the limitation
[answer, pages 3 and 4].
According to the instant specification on page 141, lines
15-17, “[t]he super-categories may consist of a sub-set of the
categories, or other categories. The super-categories are
preferably smaller in number than the categories....” Given the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitation of
“establishing super-categories for the documents” read in light
of the specification, the examiner’s interpretation of the “Legal
Resource Index” as a super-category for documents is reasonable.
Appellant argues that even if Cochran’s “Legal Resource
Index” is construed to be a super-category, the reference “does
not disclose or suggest establishing super-categories for
documents, but merely that a super-category could contain
articles” having certain classifications [reply brief, page 4].
We disagree. Cochran’s clear teaching of the existence of the
“Legal Resource Index” super-category reasonably suggests that it
is “established” given the term’s broadest reasonable
interpretation. Additionally, because the “Legal Resource Index”
super-category expressly refers to documentary legal resources,
it is reasonably construed as a super-category “for documents”
retrievable in accordance with a data query as claimed. The
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007