Appeal No. 2003-0726
Application No. 09/456,076
Examiner’s position. Rosenzweig, at paragraph 49, merely
indicates that web pages may have been accessed as a result of
the use of an Internet search engine, while paragraph 91 suggests
that, instead of caching web pages on a local client computer,
caching may be provided by a network server. It seems apparent
to us that merely storing web pages on a network server rather
than a client computer does not satisfy the claimed requirement
of transmitting indexing data from the user accessible device,
i.e., Rosenzweig’s client computer, to the remote data storage
device (Rosenzweig’s network server) which provides a search
engine database.
In view of the above discussion, in order for us to sustain
the Examiner’s rejection, we would need to resort to
impermissible speculation or unfounded assumptions or rationales
to supply deficiencies in the factual basis of the rejection
before us. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178
(CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968), rehearing
denied, 390 U.S. 1000 (1968). Accordingly, since all of the
claim limitations are not present in the disclosure of
Rosenzweig, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of appealed independent claims 1, 9, 11, 18, 21, and
26, nor of claims 2-8, 10, 12-17, 19, 20, 22-25, and 27-29
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007