Appeal No. 2002-2321
Application 09/283,268
examiner has also reasonably construed the classifications of the
various database records (“Article,” “Book Review,” etc. under
categorical identifier “Article Type”) as documentary categories
within the “Legal Resource Index” super-category.
Nevertheless, we are convinced that the examiner has failed
to show an essential claimed feature recited in independent
claims 1, 11, and 21 – namely, mapping each of the categories to
the super-category such that at least one of the categories is
mapped to a super-category automatically in accordance with at
least one previously determined mappings of categories to super-
categories. The examiner argues that Cochran teaches mapping
each data field from every index to the main file to form a
record [answer, page 4]. In support of this argument, the
examiner cites Fig. 14 of Cochran as an example of forming a
record from selections from various indexes.
We are not persuaded that this example from Cochran
reasonably teaches or suggests mapping each category to a super-
category. But, assuming for the sake of argument that the
examiner’s interpretation of “mapping” indexes to the main file
can somehow be construed as mapping each category to a super-
category, we agree with appellant that there is no support in
Cochran for automatically mapping categories to super-categories
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007