Appeal No. 2003-0277
Application No. 09/097,979
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Penteroudakis et al. (Penteroudakis) 5,995,922 Nov. 30, 1999
(filed May 2, 1996)
Liddy et al. (Liddy) 6,006,221 Dec. 21, 1999
(filed Aug. 14, 1996)
Claims 1 through 9, 11, 12, 17 through 31, 36 through 50, 52
through 55, 61 through 70, 72, 73, 75 through 78 and 80 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)2 as being unpatentable over Liddy
in view of Penteroudakis.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 18 and 22), an
early action by the examiner (paper number 7) and the supplemental
answer (paper number 23) for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and
we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 9,
11, 12, 17 through 31, 36 through 50, 52 through 55, 61 through 70,
72, 73, 75 through 78 and 80.
In Liddy, a query and documents in a database are subjected to
processing steps to generate first and second sets of language-
independent conceptual representations, respectively, prior to a
2 In the absence of a statement of the rejection
(supplemental answer, pages 3 and 4), we turned to an earlier
action (paper number 7) for an explanation of the rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007