Appeal No. 2003-0726
Application No. 09/456,076
Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to each of the appealed independent claims 1,
9, 11, 18, 21, and 26, the Examiner attempts to read the various
limitations on the disclosure of Rosenzweig. In particular, the
Examiner directs attention (page 3, final Office action mailed
May 7, 2002, Paper No. 6) to paragraphs 9, 49, 58-72, 77, and 78
of the disclosure of Rosenzweig.
Appellant’s arguments in response assert a failure of
Rosenzweig to disclose every limitation in the appealed claims as
is required to support a rejection based on anticipation. After
reviewing the Rosenzweig reference in light of the arguments of
record, we are in ultimate agreement with Appellant’s position as
expressed in the Briefs.
At the outset, however, we note that we do not agree with
Appellant’s arguments directed to the claimed feature of
automatically recording indexing data at a user accessible device
from a temporarily stored copy of an accessed web page “wherein
said indexing data corresponds to contents of said accessed web
page.” In Appellant’s view (Brief, pages 6 and 7; Reply Brief,
page 2), the caching schemes disclosed by Rosenzweig which store
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007