Appeal No. 2003-1614 Page 8
Application No. 09/817,692
B. ANTICIPATION AND OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
The examiner asserts, "Barrett discloses at column 7, lines 53-55, that 'the date
and time' is directly related to the time stamp to determine the recency to assign priority
based on the time of day (date)." (Examiner's Answer at 4.) He adds, "[f]urthermore,
Barrett discloses in figure 6 a menu having a URL list displaying a plurality of URLs, and
at least some URLs in the list are arranged based on which have been time stamped
recently." (Id.) The examiner further asserts, "Barrett discloses 'the profile' will contain
history of past URLs, and calculating statistics based on date and time (col. 7 lines 35-
67), and the 'Instance Hot List' which includes a ranking weighted by time proximity of
frequency and recency (col. 9 lines 1-8 and col. 10 lines 53-67)." (Id.) Explaining that
his "invention considers time of day (e.g., 11 AM, 3 PM, or 7 AM) and ranks URLs
accordingly," (Reply Br. at 3), the appellant argues, "[t]he Barrett mechanism, on the
other hand, does not account for the fact that it is morning, noon, or night, but instead
looks at the most recently accessed URLs and ranks them accordingly." (Id.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe claims at issue to determine their scope. Second, we determine
whether the construed claims are anticipated or would have been obvious.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007